I 


f 


Religious  and  Political*, 


On,  a  )  against  attempted  measures,  which  in  their  nature  are  calcu- 

.      .  to  Itv.d  to  the  establishment  of  Popery  among  Protestants  in  an 

GRA  HON.  There  are  also  other  subjects  inserted  in  this  little  Work, 
highly  interesting-  to  the  Lutheran  community  : 


Bt  DAVID  HENKEL, 
Pastor  of  the  Evangelical  Luthemn  Church,  residing  in  Lincoln  Co.  JV\  Carofina,- 


"Nam  mysterium  jam  operatur  iniquitatis,  solum  tenens  nunc  donee  e  me- 
dio fiat." 

"  Et  tunc  revelabitur  ille  exlex,  quern  Dominus  interficiet  spiritu  oris  su'u 
et  destruet  illustratione  adventus  sui,"  &c. 

II.  EPISTOLA  ST.  PAUII  AD  THE-S9.  CAPUT  II 


SALISBURY,  Jr.  C, 

PRINTED  BT  KPIDER  &  BOGHAX 

1821, 


v*>>y\ 


f  be  following*  ORATION  is  published  as  a  precaution  against  a  plan  which 
was  proposed  by  a  Committee  appointed  by  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod 
of  Pennsylvania,  assisted  by  an  individual  from  this  State,  at  Baltimore,  A.  D, 
1819.  It  is  by  no  means  intended  to  ridicule  all  the  ministers  of  that  venera- 
ble body :  The  strictures  in  said  Oration  are  rather  intended  to  apply  to  some 
leading  characters  only.  Neither  are  they  intended,  (with  the  exception  of  a 
few  sentences,)  to  censure  their  motives  as  much  as  their  proposed  measures, 
i  have  reasons  to  believe,  that  the  plan  was  not  maturely  contemplated  by  all 
who  voted  for  it.  I  have  not  yet  understood,  that  said  plan  has  been  adopted 
by  a  majority  of  Synods  in  the  United  States.  Agreeably  to  this,  there  must 
be  a  goodly  number  who  think  with  me  in- this  case.  The  Synod  of  Ohio,  if 
my  information  by  some  of  my  northern  correspondents  be  correct,  are  deci- 
dedly against  it,  and  the  Synod  of  New- York  concurring  in  the  same  senti- 
ment. I  must  yet  observe,  that  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  have  hitherto  en- 
deavored to  support  a  good  character.  Their  Evangelical  Magazine,  indeed, 
'with  one  exception,  which  is  noted  in  the  following  Oration,)  breathes  the 
pure  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and  displays  genuine  knowledge  and  piety  in  the 
wri'&rs.  No  doubt  the  intentions  of  many  were  good,  when  they  purposed  to 
cultivate  a  more  intimate  union  with  us  of  the  remoter  States,  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  General  Synod:  howbeit,  they  may  be  assured,  that  as  many  of 
us  as  knt>*w  our  Lord  are  already  closely  united — no  human  bulwark  can  make 
us  more  so.  Our  affections  will  also  be  much  stronger  towards  them,  pro\ided 
our  present  mode  of  Church  government  be  preserved.  Let  them  not  at- 
tempt to  deviate  from  the  Augsburgh  Confession  of  Faith,  and  our  love  and 
union  shall  never  be  clouded. 


TIYFa  AYTllOH. 


Z  Jf.  C.  1820. 


LUTHERANS  OF.  NORTH-AMERICA,  GIVE  ATTENTION! 
BRETHREN : 

Do  ye  not  think,  amidst  so  many  revolutions  in  the 
church,  it  is  time  for  us  to  inquire  whether  our  doctrine  has 
not  been  spurned,  an  invasion  upon  our  rights  attempted,  and 
destruction  threatened  to  the  simplicity  of  our  church  disci- 
pline ?  Many  are  fond  of  being  sheltered  under  the  renowned 
name  of  Luther  ;  they  think  it  an  honour  to  claim  kindred  with 
hi-n,  forasmuch  as  he  is  acknowledged  by  the  protestant 
world  to  have  been  the  blessed  instrument  of  Reformation 
from  papal  superstition,  the  flaming  Uriel,  with  his  golden 
lamp  kindled  at  the  altar  of  heaven,  flying  through  the  horizon, 
and  shedding  abroad  floods  of  everlasting  light,  over  the  be- 
nighted Eastern  hemisphere,  whilst  kings  and  nations  were 
basking  in  its  lustre.  But  many  of  those  pretenders  to  Lu- 
theranism  are  void  of  Lutheran  principles  ;  they  only  thus  de- 
nominate themselves  through  improper  motives.  The  Augs- 
burgh  confession  of  faith  is  the  point  of  union  among  all  Lu- 
therans, and  their -ministers  are  solemnly  pledged  in  its  de- 
fence. The  reason  of  this  is,  because  it  is  considered  fully 
scriptural.  It  stood  the  test  against  the  papists,  in  the  assem- 
bled Diet  of  Germany ;  its  doctrines  defied  all  opposition  ; 
its  contents  the  very  vitals  of  the  holy  religion  of  Jesus  ;  its 
truths  like  the  immovable  pillars  of  the  universe,  and  fair  like 
the  gilded  morning,  have  traversed  the  Atlantic  ocean,  blessing 
hs  German  Sons  in  the  wilderness  of  America.  Can  I  then 
be  an  idle  spectator,  and  view  with  criminal  indifference  the 
measures  that  are  taken  to  effect  its  destruction  ?  No ;  duty  con- 
strains me  j  the  tongueless  woes  inflicted  upon  our  bleeding 
churches,  rouse  me  to  opposition,  and  stimulate  my  mind 
from  the  revery.  In  the  year  1819,  apian  was  projected  no^ 
hitherto  adopted  by  the  Lutheran  community.  It  is  a  plan  for 
the  purpose  of  organizing  a  general  assembly,  which  passes 
under  the  sweet  name  of  a  general  union  of  all  Lutherans* 
Nothing  is  better  calculated  to  cast  a  veil  over  improper  mea- 
:  ire?,  than  pretensions  to  union.  But  have  not  Lutherans 
always  been  united  ?  Though  a  general  assembly  never  here- 
tofore exercised  jurisdiction  over  this  church  ;  yet,  annually 
her  children  increased  in  numbers,  ministers  and  congrega- 
tions were  concerted  families.  Schism  was  a  stranger,  bro- 
therly love  was  like  the  crescent  of  the  moon,  their  communion 
sweeter  than  the  sweet  ambrosial  hive,  and  their  rural  scenes 


4 


full  of  temporal  felicity.  Is  it  not  very  paradoxical,  that  some 
of  their  ministers  now  project  a  plan  to  unite  a  people  who 
were  never  divided?  I  need  no  better  proof  of  this,  than  what 
the  projectors  of  the  plan-proposals  themselves  admit  in  the 
introduction  of  said  plan.  It  is  there  asserted,  that  the  Lu- 
therans from  time  to  time  endeavoured  to  preserve  unity  a- 
mong  themselves.  I  dare  venture  to  say  that  unity  has  been 
preserved,  before  the  plan-proposals  appeared.  If  so,  was  not 
that  sufficient. 

It  is  my  design  to  shew  what  the  consequences  of  this  plan, 
if  adopted,  in  the  nature  of  things  may  be,  without  impeaching 
the  projectors  with  a  criminality  of  motives.  Although  it 
might  seem  as  if  some  improper  motive  might  be  concealed 
at  the  bottom,  yet  I  leave  God,  the  searcher  of  all  hearts,  to 
judge  in  this  case.  I  consider  it  a  duty,  which  I  owe  to  my 
brethren,  to  explain  this  subject,  as  clearly  as  I  am  able.  I 
shall  take  the  1st,  2d,  4th,  5th,  and  7th,  articles  of  their  plan- 
proposals  into  consideration.*  To  the  others  I  have  not  such 
great  objections.  The  first  article  says  :  "  The  central  con- 
nection of  the  Lutheran  church  in  these  United  States,  shall 
be  established  and  preserved  under  the  title,  The  General 
Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  church  in  the  U.  States 
of  North  America." 

Agreeably  to  this,  the  unity  of  the  Lutheran  church,  in 
America,  would  centre  in  a  general  Synod,  invested  with  au- 
thority to  prescribe  uniform  ceremonies,  and  to  govern  indivi- 
dual Synods  by  a  general  law.  Is  such  a  bulwark  necessary 
to  union  ?  If  it  is  not  now,  yet  it  would  be  made  so  after  its 
establishment.  Hence,  if  it  were  then  necessary,  why  was  it 
not  so  always  ?  If  it  was  always  necessary,  where  then 
has  been  the  union  heretofore,  as  there  was  not  always  a  gene- 
ral Synod  ?  Was  there  no  union  heretofore  ?  No  one,  I  hope, 
will  say  that  there  was  not.  If  there  was,  since  when  has  it 
become  necessary  to  effect  it  by  a  general  Synod  ?  Have  not 
some  of  the  projectors  of  this  plan  owned  other  regular  Luthe- 
rans as  united  brethren  ?  Why  then  is  there  a  plan  projected  to 
vmitethe  united  ?  Endeavouring  to  effect  a  union,  presupposes 
a  schism  !  Is  there  a  schism,  how  came  it  then  that  all  regu- 
lar Lutherans  have  been  owned  as  brethren  ?  O,  were  the  pre- 
tensions to  brotherhood  sincere,  the  church  would  soon  ap- 
pear, serene  like  the  unclouded  atmosphere,  pleasing  like  pa- 
radisiacal fields,  arrayed  in  living  green,  beautiful  like  love, 
shining  with  the  sunbeams  of  heaven,  with  orient  wings  ex- 
panded from  pole  to  pole,  whose  cementing  cords  are  not 

*  These  proposals  were  printed  m  the  German  Lan^uo^,  in  Baltimore 
1819. 


o 

uniformity  of  human  ceremonies,  nor  her  rallying  point  gene- 
ral Synods,  such  as  established  by  men  ;  the  place  of  her  na- 
tivity is  the  bosom  of  God  ;  and  has  for  her  abode  the  circle  of 
creation.  But,  let  me  attend  to  the  reasons  which  are  urged 
for  the  necessity  of  a  general  assembly,  which,  if  only  superfi- 
cially viewed,  appear  very  plausible.  They  are  :  "  If  the  Lu- 
theran church  be  spread  over  a  vast  territory,  unnecessary  dif- 
ferences with  respect  to  doctrines  and  discipline  may  take 
place  ;  therefore  a  general  Synod  becomes  necessary  to  main- 
tain the  cords  of  unity.  How,  without  that,  can  a  body  of 
divines  be  censured,  if  they  should  deviate  from  sound  doc- 
trine V?  The  Lutherans  have  already  a  standard :  the  Augs- 
burgh  confession  of  faith,  which  is  considered  scriptural.  It 
is  naturally  understood  that  every  Synod  must  act  in  confor- 
mity thereto  ;  and  such  as  depart  from  it  are  not  considered 
Lutherans.  Such  who  transgress  the  rules  of  doctrine  and 
discipline  of  the  Synods  to  which  they  belong,  would  also  dis- 
regard all  the  rules  of  a  general  Synod,  unless  such  a  gene- 
ral Synod  were  incorporated  by  civil  authority.  Experience 
proves  this.  Several  other  denominations  who  aie  governed 
by  general  Synods,  have  experienced  many  disagreeable  di- 
visions ;  but  did  we  ever  hear  of  schisms  among  Lutherans, 
especially  before  the  plan-proposals  were  projected  ? 

That  a  general  Synod  is  better  calculated  to  preserve  puri- 
ty in  doctrine  and  discipline  than  individual  bodies,  remains 
yet  to  be  proved.    A  general  assembly  is  composed  of  indi- 
viduals ;  now  if  individuals,  as  such,  are  liable  to  err,  will  they 
not  be  equally  liable  to  err,  when  they  are  convened  together ■? 
Can  that  make  them  wiser?    If  a  general  assembly  were  not 
liable  to  err,  as  well  as  individuals,  then  the  cause  of  the  pro- 
testant  church  must  be  wrong,  and  the  victory  be  yielded  to 
the  papists ;  because   they  were  styled  the  general  church, 
who  declared  the  protestants  excommunicated.    Why  do  not 
.  such  as  are  of  the  opinion,  that  a  great  majority  are  not  so  Ii- 
to  err,   return  to  the  Romish  church  ?    But  if  a  general 
Synod   is  liable  to  err,  which  protestants  must  own,  what 
purpose  can  it  answer?  Such  a  Synod  may  err  ;  and  that  which 
may  err,  may  err  in  rectifying  that  which  may  err.  What  ben- 
efit can  it  be  to  the  church,  to  have  an  erring  general  Synod, 
to  rectify  individual  Synods?    Now  it  must  either  follow  that 
such  a  general  Synod  must  be  infallible,  or  else  it  is  to  no  chris- 
tian purpose.    All  the  purpose  it  might  answer,  would  be  for 
a  certain  class  of  men  to  mount  upon  the  horse  of  popularity. 

That  general  councils,  or  a  great  majority,  have  often  erred, 
and  the  words  of  our  Lord:  "  Wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad  the 
way,  that  leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  there  be  which  go 
m  thereat/'  have  often  been  verified,  is  evident  from  history. 


A  few  examples  may  suffice.  How  many  false  prophets,  for- 
ming a  large  majority,  were  conspired  against  the  prophet  Eli- 
jah !  But  were  they  right  ?  No.  In  the  days  of  our  Saviour's 
humiliation,  how  many  were  on  his  side  ?  A  very  little  flock, 
chiefly  consisting  of  fishermen,  and  such  as  were  of  the  poor- 
est class.  Lo !  the  multitude  in  opposition ;  even  condemning 
him  to  the  ignominious  death  of  the  -cross !  Who  was 
right?  He,  like  a  victorious  captain  of  salvation,  rose  again,  hell 
trembled  beneath  his  feet,  he  opened  with  his  cross,  as  with  a 
key,  the  emerald  gates  of  the  holiest  place  ;  and  has  since 
proved,  that  he  is  the  only  king  of  kings,  his  words  to  be  infal- 
lible and  his  government  wise  and  invincible.  Lo  !  the  pa- 
pists with  their  numbers,  against  a  few  of  the  Reformers.  Who 
was  right  ?  Protestauts  in  general  are  ready  to  decide  this 
question  in  their  own  behalf. 

Whenever  the  government  of  such  an  assembly  should  be 
recognised,  their  laws  and  ceremonies  would  have  to  be  ob- 
served on  pain  of  excommunication,  as  shall  be  further  illus- 
trated. .Gradually,  by  this  mean,  the  church  would  become 
imitative  of  civil  authority,  although  our  Saviour  says,  u  My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  as  the  Jews  vainly  imagined, 
and  in  which  his  own  disciples  sought  distinction.  It  would 
also  prepare  the  way  for  a  visible  head  fo  be  created.  This 
is  the  very  soul  of  popery,  "  a  visible  uniori  of  all  Christians^ 
centering  in  a  supreme  visible  head,  and  allowing  no  invisible 
iviihoul  a  visible  unity,  the  true  mark  of  the  Christian  church" 
A  general  assembly  having  supreme  jurisdiction,  is  the  same 
as  a  visible  head,  if  not  individually,  yet  collectively.  An 
hundred  delegated  to  exercise  supreme  jurisdiction,  must  be 
considered  as  one  ;  because  they  must  act  jointly,  or,  at  least, 
so  by  a  majority.  Now  if  no  union  be  acknowledged  but  such 
as  centres  in  a  General  Synod,  then  the  papish  motto,  "  No 
union  without  a  visible  head,"  would  become  a  maxim  among 
Protestants.  As  soon  as  there  is  a  tribunal  of  the  church  ac- 
knowledged besides  that  of  Christ,  or  in  his  stead,  then  ancient 
popery  is  again  recognised,  with  all  its  horrors.  A  Generat 
Assembly  is  a  supreme  tribunal,  from  \vhich  no  appeal  can  be 
made  without  a  schism.  It  was  by  general  councils  that  the 
'trst  pope  became  elevated  to  his  superior  dignity.  Do  noL 
like  causes  for  ever  produce  like  effects  ?  Did  the  organi  - 
zation of  general  councils  once  create  popery?  Will  the  same 
cause  now  not  have  the  same  effect?  G,  Protestants!  where 
are  any  of  you  that  are  not  struck  with  indignation,  when  a 
venerable  chronicler  paints  to  your  minds  the  pope's  enormous 
pretensions  ;  arrogating  to  Kin.  self  the  vicegerency  of  Christ; 
poisoning  all  the  pure  waters  of  life  ;  who,  being  a  monster  in 
human  &!rape,red  with  the  fires  -of  he!!,  premeditating  destru< 


ticn  with  nre  and  sword  by  the  Inquisition  ;  his  flag  unfurled  , 
written  full  of  blasphemies,  reeking  with  innocent  blood  ?  How 
can  any  of  you,  who  participate  in  the  woes  of  mankind,  lay  a 
similar  foundation,  which  in  its  nature  is  calculated  to  termi- 
nate in  scenes  too  bloody  and  horrible  to  be  depicted  ?  Is  un- 
ion to  centre  in  General  Synod  ?  Are  all  to  be  considered 
schismatics  who  do  not  obey  their  mandates  ?  How,  then, 
can  Christ  be  the  alone  object  of  union  ?  Is  he  the  most  per- 
fect object  offdnion  ?  how  is  it  possible  to  make  the  most  per- 
fect more  perfect,  by  an  addition  of  a  General  Assembly?  If 
union  is  also  to  centre  in  a  General  Synod,  how,  then,  can  it 
centre  in  Christ  only?  Whosoever  is  justified  by  Christ,  is 
also  united  to  him  :  his  soul  being  impressed  with  his  lovely 
image,  he  is  in  fellowship  with  all  saints  and  angels  in  the  uni- 
verse, whether  they  dwell  in  any  of  the  regions  here  below,  or  in 
the  high  climes  of  bliss.  The  union  of  believers,  like  their 
king,  is  invisible — 44  their  life  being  hid  with  Christ  in  God  {? 
it  therefore  does  not  matter  whether  their  human  ceremonies 
and  modes  of  government  harmonize.  All  their  union  which 
is  discoverable,  is  their  uniform  obedience  to  the  Lord's  com- 
mandments :  but  carnal  and  full  of  darkness  must  be  the  eye 
that  can  see  no  union  unless  it  be  in  a  General  Synod.  What- 
soever is  necessary  to  Christian  union,  is  also  necessary  to 
justification.  Justification  through  Christ  unites  all  believers, 
independent  of  any  thing  else.  How,  then,  in  this  case,  should 
conformity  in  human  ceremonies,  &c.  become  necessary  ? 
Would  the  General  Synod  not  have  all  their  members  to  ob- 
serve the  laws  and  ceremonies  they  would  be  pleased  to  make? 
But  in  case'some  of  the  members  would  not  observe  them, but 
such  as  they  would  make  themselves, and  ordain  ministers  and 
establish  synods  without  their  charter;  how  would  the  General 
Synod  deal  with  such?  Would  they  not  coerce  them  to  obe- 
dience, or  else  finally  exclude  them  from  their  fellowship? 
They  certainly  would  ;  otherwise  the  organization  of  such  as. 
assembly  would  be  useless.  Now  for  what  reason  ought  sam 
person  to  be  excommunicated  from  the  church?  It  must  be 
granted,  that  a  person  ought  only  to  be  excommunicated  for 
such  crimes  as  would  debar  him  from  the  inheritance  of  heav- 
en. But  if  any  one  is  to  be  excommunicated  for  not  observ- 
ing the  mandates  of  the  General  Synod,  then  it  must  also  be 
considered  such  a  crime  as  would  debar  one  from  heaven.  If 
this  be  the  case,  they  become  necessary  to  Justification,  which 
is  repugnant  to  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Protestants.  Uni- 
formity of  human  ceremonies,  Sec.  and  a  visible  head,  were 
considered  necessary  among  the  papists  ;  and  this  was  the  rea- 
son that  the  doctrine  of  free  justification  and  Christian  libertv 
became  so  darkened  and  oblivious,  that  it  required  the  Lord 


g 


el  Hosts  to  make  bare  his  holy  arm  in  restoring  it,  by  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  Reformers,  to  a  benighted  world.  Should 
the  same  (viz.  a  visible  head  or  General  Synod)  now  be  con- 
sidered necessary,  and  be  adopted,  then,  alas  !  we  may  put  the 
light  kindled  in  the  Reformation  under  a  bushel;  we  may 
draw  the  veil  of  death  over  our  eyes ;  Christian  liberty  may 
hide  her  lovely  face,  and  weep  tears  of  blood  ;  and  O  !  fare- 
well ye  happy  seats  of  freedom,  where  virtue  had  found  an 
asylum  ;  farewell  thou  sweet  doctrine  of  free  justification, 
through  the  crucified — thou  balm  of  Gilead,  thou  consolation 
to  the  afflicted;  hail,  horrors  and  scenes  of  destruction!  ye 
must  be  the  dreadful  companions  to  mankind. 

The  second  article  of  the  plan-  proposals  shows  how  each 
Synod  is  to  be  represented  in  the  General  Synod — viz : 

"  Each  Synod,  of  six  ministers,  may  send  one  deputy  ;  of 
fourteen,  two  ;  of  twenty-five,  three  ;  of  forty,  four ;  of  sixty, 
five  ;  and  of  eighty-six,  six  deputies  to  the  General  Synod, 
from  the  order  of  the  ministry ;  and  for  every  two  such  depu- 
ties, one  lay  deputy  ;  and  also  one  lay  deputy  for  the  Synod 
consisting  of  six  ministers  :  and  that  all  such  deputies  shall 
have  equal  votes." 

This  mode  of  representation  will  give  all  the  authority  into 
the  hands  of  the  ministry :  because  there  are  to  be  two  minis- 
ters for  one  lay  deputy.  Lay  deputies  might  as  well  be  alto- 
gether excluded,  since  their  numbers  are  not  to  be  commen- 
surate. The  most  numerous  Synod  would  also  have  the  great- 
est influence,  which  is  that  of  Pennsylvania.  Indeed,  the  very- 
least  is  to  be  represented ;  yet  the  greatest  is  to  claim  the  pre- 
eminence. Recognising  this  article,  is  at  once  surrendering 
the  rights  and  privileges  cf  the  lesser  Synods  to  the  greater 
ones  :  for  if  they  did  not  freely  acquiesce  in  their  decisions, 
they  would  finally  be  compelled  to  do  it  by  a  majority  of  votes. 
Let  me  state  to  you,  brethren,  the  consequences  of  this  greater 
representation  against  the  lesser,  in  the  nature  of  things,  is 
calculated  to  produce.  The  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  the  most 
numerous,  will  have  it  in  their  power  to  adopt  almost  anv 
resolution  ;  or  they  might  idrm  the  constitution  of  the  General 
Synod  to  their  best  local  advantage.  Who  can  tell  but  what  a 
clause  might  be  inserted,  that  a  general  Seminary  should  be 
established  in  the  very  bosom  of  Pennsylvania  ;  and  that  none 
should  be  promoted  in  the  ministry  unless  he  had  received  his 
education  there  ?  I  do  not  positively  say  that  this  would  be 
the  case  ;  nor  do  I  censure  the  present  Synod  with  such  sin- 
ister motives  ;  but  they  have  left  an  open  door  for  their  suc- 
cessors to  do  so,  if  they  please  ;  and  the  weakness  of  human 
nature  is  such,  as  to  be  very  apt  to  prostitute  power  to  selfish 
views.    A  general  Seminary  established  in  that  state,  would 


9 


not  only  cause  many  sums  of  money  to  flow  there  from  tuc 
various  parts  of  the  Union,  but  it  would  also  fan  the  fires  of 
the  spirit  of  aggrandizement.  The  mind  of  (carnal)  man  id 
such  as  to  be  delighted  in  something  that  makes  a  grand  ap- 
pearance, and  that  is  denominated  by  high  sounding  epithets  : 
such  as,  "  a  General  Synod;"  a  General  Seminary,  in  a  great 
City.  Such  a  one  has  studied  there,  hence  he  must  be  a  very 
great  man.  When  a  certain  resolution,  which  was  adopted  by 
the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  (or  a  majority  of  them,)  is  consid- 
ered, the  reader  cannot  censure  me  tor  entertaining  the  above 
ideas.  It  was  resolved  by  said  Synod,  in  1815,  "That  only 
such  can  be  ordained  pastors  who  have ,  for  the  space  of  three 
years,  received  a  systematic  education  with  an  ordained  min- 
ister, and  have  made  some  progress  in  the  languages."  See 
Evangelical  Magazine  of  1816,  page  11.  If  this  resolution 
was  not  erroneously  committed  to  paper,  it  bears  symptoms  of 
contracted  views.  Is  there  no  possibility  of  acquiring  the  ne- 
cessary qualifications  for  the  office  of  the  ministry,  without 
studying  three  years  with  an  ordained  minister?  "He  must 
have  made  some  progress  in  the  languages."  In  which  of 
them  ?  How  vague  !  In  the  German  and  English,  in  any 
other  of  the  modern,  or  in  the  classical  languages  I  No  doubt 
but  what  the  latter  are  intended,  yet  by  no  means  specified. 
A  wealthy  person  might  afford  to  pursue  this  course,  notwith- 
standing he  still  might  remain  a  coxcomb  ;  yet,  because  he  has 
studied  three  years  with  an  ordained  minister,  he  is  entitled  to 
a  pastoral  ordination :  whereas,  the  most  illustrious  genius, 
highly  improved,  and  living  in  a  remote  corner,  no  ordained 
minister  near  him,  nor  having  the  means  to  go  far  abroad,  he 
cannot  become  a  pastor,  but  must  for  ever  remain  contracted 
in  his  usefulness  !  Why  so  ?  Because  he  has  not  studied' three 
years  with  an  ordained  minister  ! !  Is  t!-'s  the  spirit  of  Jesus  ? 
or  congenial  to  that  of  American  patriotism,  which  is  far  re- 
moved from  proud,  sanguine  European  nobility,  adorning  with 
chaplets  only  such  who  distinguish  themselves  by  their  quali- 
fications and  merits,  no  matter  how  acquired  or  achieved  ? 
From  this  view  of  things,  it  is  safest  to  use  every  means  of 
precaution. 

In  this  article  it  is  also  proposed,  u  That  it  should  be  left  to 
the  option  of  every  Synod  how  to  appoint  their  deputies,  and 
hoxv  to  defray  their  travelling  expenses."  Why  are  not  the 
travelling  expenses  to  be  paid  out  of  the  general  treasury  ? 
The  greatest  Synod,  with  her  representation,  may  appoint  the 
place  of  the  meeting  of  the  General  Synod  where  they  please  ; 
hence  in  their  midst,  so  that  their  deputies  would  not  have 
far  to  travel,  therefore  not  many  expenses  to  defray ;  but  the 


id 


poor  frontier  deputies,  who  would  have  many  hundred  miles 
distance  to  travel,  might  have  the  liberty  to  provide  for  them- 
selves in  this  respect.  Into  their  midst  they  would  have  to 
come,  or  else  obey  what  would  be  decreed  without  their  pres- 
ence. Is  it  for  Pennsylvania  to  sway  her  regal  sceptre  over 
her  sister  states,  with  her  major  representation  ?  Is  she  alone 
the  temple  of  the  Lord  ?  She,  indeed,  has  many  pious,  learned 
men,  highly  esteemed,  who  are  an  ornament  to  the  church ; 
but  she  must  know  that  other  states  are  not  void  of  such,  who 
know  how  to  estimate  their  spiritual  liberty  ;  who,  whilst  they 
are  animated  with  freedom's  blood,  will  not,  as  men  and  Chris- 
tians, surrender  their  privileges  to  a  superior  representation. 

The  fourth  article  of  this  plan-proposal  says,  that  "The 
General  Synod,  with  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  particu- 
lar Synods,  have  exclusive  authority  to  introduce  new  books 
for  the  public  use  in  churches,  as  well  as  to  make  amendments 
in  the  Liturgy ;  but  until  that  is  done,  the  hymn  books  or  com- 
pilation of  hymns,  the  smaller  cate chism  of  Luther,  the  litur- 
gies already  adopted,  and  such  ether  books  which  are  now 
received  by  the  present  Synods  as  symbolical,  shall  remain  in 
public  use  ;,  but  the  General  Synod  shall  have  no  authority  to 
make,  or  to  request,  any  alteration  in  any  of  the  Creeds  hith- 
erto adopted  by  us."  This  article,  if  recognised,  would  take 
away  the  liberty  of  individuals  and  individual  Synods,  with 
respect  to  the  forming  and  introducing  of  books  and  liturgies 
for  the  public  use  in  churches.  A  liturgy  prescribes  ceremo- 
nies and  regulations  for  public  worship,  and  other  transactions. 
Many  of  these  are  merely  human,  relative  to  local  circumstan- 
ces. Now  if  none  shall  have  the  privilege  to  prescribe  a  lit- 
urgy but  only  the  General  Synod,  and  none  to  be  considered  as 
members  of  the  church  unless  they  be  governed  by  it,  then  it 
would  be  the  same  as  to  say,  Observe  uniform  ceremonies  as 
established  by  men,  or  else  no  union  \  The  term  u  exclusive," 
sufficiently  demonstrates  this  ;  because  it  is  thereby  indicated, 
that  such  authority  is  claimed  by  the  General  Synod  only.  It 
would  then  be  in  the  power  of  the  General  Synod  to  introduce 
entire  new  books,  and  such,  too,  which  even  did  not  contain 
the  Lutheran  doctrine.  It  is  not  said  that  the  present  books, 
such  as  Luther's  catechism,  &c.  should  remain  the  standard 
books ;  but  that  thev  should  be  retained  in  use  until — "  Unfit" 
when?  Until  the  General  Svnod  shall  introduce  new  books. 
The  term  u  until,"  shows  that  our  present  symbolical  books 
may  only  be  of  a  temporary  use.  Would  they  reject  Luth  er's 
catechism,  cur  present  liturgies,  hymns,  and  the  Aug'sburgh 
confession  of  faith,  and  introduce  others  in  lieu  of  them  ?  I  do 
not  know.    But  they  would  have  exclusive  authority  to  do  so 


11 


if  they  pleased.  Had  the  projectors  of  this  plan  positively  in- 
tended that  our  present  creeds  and  symbolical  books  should 
always  be  retained  in  use,  why  was  there  not  a  clause  inserted 
to  that  amount  ?  It  is  true  that  this  article  states,  fh  that  the 
General  Synod  shall  have  no  authority  to  make  any  alterations 
in  any  of  the  creeds  hitherto  adopted  by  us."  But  how  in- 
definite !  No  alteration  is  to  be  made  in  any  of  our  creeds  ; 
Our  creeds  can  every  one  of  them  be  omitted  and  rejected,  if 
only  they  be  not  altered.  To  alter  a  creed,  and  to  omit  a 
creed,  are  two  different  things.  They  would  need  no  altera- 
tion if  they  were  rejected.  Why  is  this  article  not  expressed 
in  positive  terms,  that  no  creed  hitherto  adopted  by  us,  should 
neither  be  omitted,  rejected,  or  altered?  Agreeably  to  this, 
Luther's  catechism,  and  the  Augsburgh  confession  of  faith, 
might  be  omitted  without  a  breach  of  the  article.  Brethren, 
where  are  any  of  you  who  have  not  solemnly  vowed  obedience 
to  their  doctrines,  when  ye  were  confirmed,  by  the  imposition 
of  hands  and  prayer  ?  Are  they  not  invaluable  treasures  of 
God,  bequeathed  to  our  forefathers  when  they  were  liberated 
from  the  chains  of  popery  ?  They  are  testimonies  of  the  Hoi} 
Ghost  in  the  house  of  God,  and  the  heavenly  productions  of 
th  Reformation.  What  a  criminal  sacrilege  it  would  be  to 
effect  their  destruction  !  They,  indeed,  have  derived  their  va- 
lidity and  divine  glory  from  the  holy  scriptures,  which  ought 
to  be  the  foundation  of  all  churches,  with  respect  to  doctrine 
and  discipline.  The  Bible  is  not  once  mentioned  in  the  plan- 
posals  for  a  General  Synod !  All  that  is  said,  is,  that  none  of 
our  creeds  should  be  altered  i  Thus  the  Bible  itself  might  be 
omitted,  if  it  only  be  not  altered;  and  without  restraint,  any 
system  of  infidelity  might  be  established.  Although  I  am 
confident  that  none  of  the  projectors  aim  at  such  a  thing — and 
perhaps  they  detest  the  very  idea — yet  I  consider  it  my  duty 
to  lay  before  them  their  inattention  in  this  respect.  But  these 
are  not  the  greatest  objections  I  have  against  this  article.  It 
is  subversive  to  the  liberty  guaranteed  to  all  Lutherans,  by  the 
7th  article  of  the  Augsburgh  confession  of  faith  ;  which  ex- 
pressly saith,  M  It  is  sufficient  for  the  true  unity  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  that  the  preaching  be  pure,  according  to  the  true 
understanding  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  sacraments  administered 
according  to  divine  Scripture  ;  and  it  is  not  necessary  for  the 
true  unity  of  the  Christian  Church,  that  the  same  ceremonies 
as  established  by  men  should  be  observed,  as  St.  Paul  sait^v, 
Eph.  4,  "One  body,  one  spirit,  as  ye  all  are  called  to  the  sanie 
hope  cf  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism.''  L 
is  to  be  observed,  that  the  Reformers  were  opposed  to  the 
principles  of  the  papists,  who  had  obscured  the  doctrine  qf  frer- 


12 


justification  through  Christ  by  their  human  traditions.  They 
imposed  all  their  uniform  ceremonies  and  traditions  upon  the 
church,  as  necessary  to  christian  unity.  Now  the  Reformers 
knew  that  this  was  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  free  justifica- 
tion ;  hence  this  7th  article  was  wisely  inserted,  declaring  that 
it  was  not  necessary  to  the  true  unity  of  the  church  that  the 
same  ceremonies  as  established  by  men  should  be  observed. 
The  pure  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  proper  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  become  justly  necessary,  because  they 
are  no  human  inventions,  but  positive  institutions  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Human  ceremonies,  in  their  proper  place,  are  not 
sinful;  but  they  become  so  whenever  they  are  imposed  as 
necessary  to  unity.  Neither  was  circumcision  sinful  in  itself; 
but  when  it  was  urged  as  necessary  to  salvation,  the  Apostle 
does  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  such  in  a  lost  state  that  were 
circumcised.  But  this  article  of  the  plan-proposal  allows  ex- 
clusive authority  to  the  General  Synod  to  impose  a  uniform 
liturgy,  catechism,  &c.  upon  the  whole  connexion  :  Her  man- 
dates are  to  be  obeyed;  and  thus  uniformity  of  human  cere- 
monies are  made  necessary  to  christian  unity,  contrary  to  the 
7th  article  of  the  Augsburgh  confession  of  faith.  O,  Lutheran 
ministers !  such  of  you  who  are  the  votaries  of  this  General 
Synod  plan,  what  must  your  conscience  tell  you,  when  ye  re- 
call to  your  minds  the  days  of  your  ordinations,  when  ye  sol- 
emnly swore  to  maintain  the  very  article  your  plan  is  calcu- 
lated to  subvert  ?  In  vain  you  inurn  Luther,  and  shelter  your- 
selves under  the  sacred  covert  of  his  name ;  in  vain  you  deem 
it  an  honor  to  claim  kindred  with  him,  who  was  the  Orpheus 
of  Germany,  the  hero  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  terror  to  popery, 
unless  ye  continue  to  be  animated  with  his  spirit. 

In  the  5th  article  of  their  plan,  it  is  proposed,  "  That  no 
Synod  should  be  established  without  a  charter  from  the  Gen- 
eral Synod ;  and  that  no  ordination  should  be  considered  as 
valid,  that  was  imparted  by  a  Synod  not  chartered  by  the  Gen- 
eral Synod."  At  present,  and  as  the  church  has  heretofore 
been  governed,  a  charter  from  a  General  Synod  was  never 
considered  necessary  to  the  establishment  of  a  Synod.  There 
is  no  Lutheran  Synod  in  the  United  States  which  has  been 
chartered  by  a  General  Synod ;  and,  I  dare  venture  to  say, 
none  in  Europe.  The  first  Lutheran  churches  were  establish- 
ed without  it.  Did  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  who  were 
the  majority,  give  Luther  and  his  adherents  charters?  No> 
Instead  of  that,  they  excommunicated  them,  and  declared  all 
the  ordinations  they  imparted,  as  invalid.  Notwithstanding,  all 
such  protestant  ordinations  which  came  through  the  apostol- 
ical channel,  if  even  performed  by  individuals,  are  by  thcrr 


generally  considered  to  be  divinely  valid.  We  have  not  only 
a  precedent  in  the  pristine  church,  with  respect  to  this,  but  also 
the  warrants  of  the  holy  Scriptures.  The  inauguration  of 
Christ  as  a  High  Priest,  by  John  the  Baptist,  in  Jordan,  whilst 
the  impenetrable  doors  of  heaven  opened  ;  whilst  the  Father 
spake  ineffably  mild,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  celestial  dove, 
anointed  him  with  the  oil  of  gladness,  above  his  fellows : 
Without  a  charter  from  the  Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews,  his  office 
maintains  its  validity  for  ever  and  ever.  The  commission  oar 
Saviour  gave  to  his  Apostles,  though  not  ratified  by  a  General 
Synod  of  men,  is  still  valid  ;  and  the  individual  ordinations 
they  imparted  will  for  ever  remain  authoritative,  and  their  min- 
isterial succession  will  reach  the  very  gates  of  New  Jerusalem. 
It  is  an  undeniable  fact,  that  the  ordinations  which  are  in  ex- 
istence among  protestants,  have  been  derived  from  individual 
sources;  yet  their  validity  is  not  questioned.  Now  whereas, 
such  ordinations  have  always  been  admitted  to  be  valid,  since 
when  have  they  lost  their  validity  ?  Should  they  always  have 
been  valid,  until  Trinity  week  of  1819,  when  a  committee  in 
the  great  city  of  Baltimore  proposed,  that  no  ordination  should 
be  considered  valid  unless  imparted  by  a  chartered  Synod  1 
If  a  charter  from  a  General  Synod  becomes  necessary  hereaf- 
ter to  make  an  ordination  valid,  why  was  it  not  always  so  here- 
tofore ?  There  is  no  such  ordination  among  us  now ;  hence, 
if  this  is  to  become  a  maxim,  that  none  shall  be  valid  unless 
imparted  by  a  chartered  Synod,  we  will  at  once  cause  the 
world  to  believe  that  there  is  not  a  single  protestant  minister 
legally  ordained,  and  that  they  were  all  a  horde  of  impostors  \ 
The  aforesaid  article  proposes  to  pronounce  all  unchartered 
Synods  which  may  be  established  hereafter,  to  be  illegal.  No 
Lutheran  Synod  being  chartered,  how  then  can  any  one,  or 
more  than  one  when  they  compose  a  General  Synod,  give 
charters  I  Jejune  must  be  the  idea,  and  grotesque  the  preten- 
sion, for  unchartered  Synods  in  a  conclave  to  pronounce  other 
Synods  illegal,  merely  because  they  are  not  chartered  !  Un- 
chartered Synods  give  charters  !  Lo !  what  an  exotic  plant  is 
this !  at  first  germinated  in  hell,  fostered  by  the  old  harlot  in 
the  garden  of  Rome  ;  poisoning  all  that  is  pure,  and  destroy- 
ing all  that  is  lovely  ;  metamorphosed  into  a  maniac  demon, 
in  the  disguise  of  religion,  is  now  proposed  to  be  transplanted 
into  the  clarified  soil  of  Lutheranism,  which  fills  the  agile 
mind  with  anticipated  horrors  of  popery  revived,  even  upon 
the  unsullied  shores  of  America.  Could  there  be  a  better 
weapon  given  to  the  papists,  to  overturn  the  protestant  cause, 
than  what  the  projectors  of  the  aforesaid  article  have  done  ? 
One  of  the  peculiar  diabolical  depths  of  popery  is.  that  that  no 


thurch  can  be  regular,  no  ordination  valid,  unless  chartered  by 
3he  Roman  Catholic  ;  and  upon  this  ground  she  fulminates  her 
anathemas  against  all  protestants.  Is  not  what  is  proposed  in 
the  aforesaid  article  similar  in  its  nature,  when  no  ordination 
shall  be  considered  valid,  unless  imparted  by  a  Synod  char- 
tered by  the  General  Synod  ?  Let  this  become  a  maxim  among 
the  protestants,  may  the  papists  not  justly  argue,  that  they 
alone  are  a  regular  church,  and  the  protestants  to  be  schis- 
inades,  not  being  chartered  by  the  church  universal  ?  How 
would  it  be  possible  for  protestants,  upon  this  supposition,  to 
support  themselves  as  a  regular  church  ?  It  would  be  out  of 
the  question:  they  must  be  silent  for  ever;  surrender  their  in- 
dependency ;  offer  their  hecatombs  upon  the  altar  of  idols  ; 
and,  like  pusillanimous  deserters,  on  bended  knees,  at  the 
footstool  of  Rome,  implore  her  majesty  for  charters,  lest,  by 
their  own  concessions,  they  lose  their  ecclesiastical  existence. 

The  7th  article  of  the  plan-proposal  says,  u  That  the  General 
Synod,  with  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  particular  Synods, 
shall  have  the  authority  to  determine  general  valid  grades  in 
the.  ministry."  This  article  is  no  where  restricted  how  far 
they  would  be  allowed  to  go  in  this  respect.  Whether  fewer 
grades  than  are  among  us  now  would  be  determined,  or 
whether  their  numbers  would  be  increased,  is  not  known ;  yet 
this  article  allows  them  to  form  as  many  as  they  please. 
Who  can  tell  but  what  there  might  be  as  many  formed  as  there 
are  in  all  popedom — or  even  enthrone  a  pope  for  America; 
There  are  four  grades  of  ministers  already  existing,  should 
there  none  more  be  formed  ;  yet,  if  the  General  Synod  be 
formed  with  their  officers,  there  would  be  a  hierarchy  replete. 
There  would  be  the  president  and  delegates  of  the  General 
Synod  -T  the  presidents  of  individual  Synods,  with  the  four 
grades  already  mentioned  j  thus  the  number,  seven,  would  be 
full.  The  whore  of  Rome  rides  upon  seven  mountains,  and 
the  beast  h;*s  seven  horns  :  And  what  a  lair  opportunity  is  of- 
fered* by  this  article,  to  introduce  the  mystic  seven  of  iniquity 
>mo  me  Lutheran  church.  Who  can  deny  hut  what  many 
grades  in  the  ministry  is  one  of  the  peculiar  lifestrings  of  po- 
pery, and  one  of  the  lineaments  of  its  image  ?  and  ail  that  is 
wanting,  is  the  breath  of  l?fe  to  be  blown  into  its  nostrils,  for 
it  to  become  a  living  beast,  which  may  gore  all  the  other  beasts 
of  the;  field.  Lo  !  the  gorgeous  President  of  the  General  Sy- 
nod, at  the  head  of  all  Lutherans  in  America  ;  enthroned,  a 
sceptred  monarch,  gloomy,  and  peculiar,  and  unrivaled  ;  for- 
getting that  his  predecessor  Martin  was  a  poor  excommuni- 
cated monk  :  he  has  delegates  for  his  life-guard,  presidents  hi:» 
••'srsss.ncs,,  pastors  his  common  people,  deacons  hi?  servants*, 


15 

candidates  and  catechets  his  out-posts,  and  congregations  his 
footstool.  What  may  be  the  reason  that  fair,  independent 
Lutheranism,  the  puissant  arm,  nerved  by  the  Lord,  to  pull 
down  the  Dagon  walls  of  seven-headed  popery,  should  now 
itself,  even  where  freedom's  emblazoned  flag  unfurled  waves 
in  mild  aurora's  beams,  be  suborned  into  a  seven-headed  mon- 
ster !  If  Luther  was  now  to  rise  from  his  grave,  and  come  to 
America,  what  would  he  say  at  hearing  that  those  who  called 
themselves  after  his  name,  had  opened  so  wide  a  door  for  the 
establishment  of  many  grades  in  the  ministry  ?  Would  he  own 
them  as  protestant  brethren  ? 

Having  thus  briefly  viewed  some  of  the  articles  of  the  pro- 
posals for  a  General  Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  I  must 
yet  observe,  that  the  design  of  some  does  not  stop  here.  The 
establishment  of  a  national  church  is  in  view ;  not  only  by 
some  of  the  Lutherans,  but  also  of  other  denominations.  The 
most  sanguine  expectations  are  entertained  that  all  Christian 
denominations  will,  ere  long,  join  in  one  body.  That  such  is 
the  case,  does  not  only  appear  from  many  verbal  expressions, 
but  also  from  printed  propositions,  of  which,  if  necessary,  I 
could  produce  a  sullicient  testimony.  The  attempt  for  a  na- 
tional Synod  is  introduced  under  the  garb  of  a  universal  broth- 
erhood among  ail  christians,  and  to  hasten  the  period  when 
they  shall  have  but  one  shepherd,  and  be  one  flock.  Now  it 
is  supposed  by  many,  that  this  period  being  nearly  at  hand, 
nothing  is  wanting  to  form  the  zenith  of  unity  but  an  agree- 
ment to  be  governed  by  a  national  assembly,  to  lay  aside  all 
party  distinctions,  and  to  drop  controversial  subjects  of  doc- 
trine for  ever.  This,  then,  would  be  the  blessed  Millennium; 
predicted  by  the  holy  scriptures.  Such  are  the  visional*}* 
dreams  of  many  in  our  days  ;  hence  the  labor  with  assiduity 
to  promote  this  cause  ;  and  being  the  heralds  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  party  walls,  they  anticipate  in  sharing  great  honors  m 
this  new  dispensation.  But  let  me  examine  these  things  <\  lit- 
tle closer.  The  scriptures  certainly  predict  a  very  harmoni- 
ous time,  which  shall  commence  before  heaven  and  earth  shall 
blaze  in  the  final  conflagration,  a  period  whose  duration  shall 
be  a  thousand  years  ;  the  jubilant  sabbath  of  the  world,  ush- 
ered in  by  ten  thousand  myriads  of  bright  Urim,  and  the 
rushing  sound  of  the  chariot  of  paternal 'Deity,  shining  from 
the  east  even  unto  the  west ;  reigning  in  his  meridian  elory, 
whose  ensign,  dipped  in  his  divine  blood,  is  planted  on  ZionV, 
hill,  whereunto  the  nations  shall  assemble.  But  before  such  a 
charming  union  can  take  place;  before  such  imparadised  be- 
atitude can  embrace  the  human  family,  all  must  become  of  one 
heart  and  mind,  and  be  like  instrumental  harmony-    To  wake 


16 


the  different  denominations  must  be  a  vain  undertaking,  before 
they  believe  uniform  doctrines.  Differences  in  doctrine  at  first 
caused  them  to  be  separate  people  ;  hence  the  effects  will  nev- 
er cease,  until  the  cause  be  stopped.  As  soon  as  all  believe 
one  doctrine,  then  the  cause  of  division  ceases  ;  union  then, 
without  any  further  exertions,  will  be  the  infallible  result. 
Nevertheless,  the  votaries  of  the  National  Synod,  bent  upon 
their  designs,  declare  that  disputed  doctrines,  such  as  divide 
the  different  christian  denominations,  should  be  dropped.  Con- 
troversial sermons  are  even  deemed  by  many  to  be  sinful,  be- 
cause they  have  a  tendency  to  offend  some,  at  least  such  who 
cannot  support  their  rotten  systems  by  sound  arguments. 
What  language  is  more  current  among  people  at  this  time,  in- 
dicative of  ignorance  and  lukewarmness,  than  the  following  ? 
viz  :  "  It  does  not  matter  what  or  how  one  believes,  if  the 
heart  only  means  it  well;  whatever  any  one  thinks  to  be  right, 
is  right,  (at  least  to  him.)  *  u  Let  every  man  be  fully  persua- 
ded in  his  oxvn  mind."  What  an  encouragement  to  lukewarm- 
ness !  What  is  the  heart  of  man,  that  any  one  can  plead  its 
meaning  well  in  a  state  of  error?  It  is  treacherously  wicked, 
and  a  fool  only  depends  upon  it.  The  understanding  must  be 
illuminated,  so  as  to  embrace  nothing  but  the  truth,  before  the 
soul  can  fully  enjoy  God.  Our  blessed  Lord  saith,  "  He  that 
believeth  on  me,  as  the  scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall 
flow  rivers  of  living  water"  John  vn.  38.  Not  he  that  be- 
lieveth any  way,  only  meaning  it  well,  but  "he  that  belitveth 
as  the  scripture  hath  said"  &c.  The  human  soul  does  not  only 
possess  a  will  to  mean  well,  but  also  an  understanding  to  view 
the  beauties  of  divine  truths.  Is*it  rational  that  the  will  only, 
the  half  of  the  soul,  should  be  devoted  to  the  service  of  God? 
A  divided  soul !  how  can  that  be  well  pleasing  to  him  ?  The 
understanding,  that  noble  faculty,  by  which  the  soul  claims 
kindred  with  angels,  and  walks  the  planetary  regions,  is  it  pos- 
sible that  it  should  be  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  genu- 
ine knowledge,  and  leave  all  to  the  well-meaning  of  the  will  ? 
Was  Christ  indifferent  concerning  the  truth?   Did  he  leave  it 

*  "  Let  every  man  be  fall  -  persuaded  in  his  own  mind'*  Rom.  14,  v.  5.  This 
verse  is  shamefully  perverted  by  some,  who  imagine  whatever  any  man  be- 
lieves to  be  right,  is  right  to  him,  if  it  should  be  ever  so  wrong" ;  because,  let 
t"uery  man  be  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.  But  the  Apostle,  in  the  preceding- 
part  of  the  verse,  only  saith,  "  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another an- 
other esteemrth  every  day  alike"  And  then  he  saith,  "  J*et  every  man  be  ftdlr 
persnaded"  &c.  If  this  were  true,  that  whatsoever  any  one  believed  to  be 
right,  that  it  then  would  be  right,  it  would  not  have  been  necessary  for  the  ho- 
ly Scriptures  to  be  revealed,  because  every  one  might  have  followed  his  own 
imagination,  and  be  right,  lie  might  be  a  murderer,  thief,  &.c.  and  be  right, 
because  he  believed  it  to  be  right ;  therefore  it  would  be  right  to  him.  MOfit 
shocking  conclusion ! 


if 

to  the  well-meaning  of  the  Pharisees,  and  the  common  popu- 
lace ?  No  :  His  life  was  devoted  to  it ;  he  did  not  only  die  as 
a  sacrifice,  but  also  as  a  martyr,  for  the  sake  of  the  truth,  when 
he  witnessed  a  good  confession  before  Pontius  Pilate.  Does 
it  now  become  those  who  are  called  his  servants,  to  be  silent 
upon  points  of  doctrine,  when  there  is  nothing  upon  divine 
record  which  is  a  matter  of  indifference — '■treacherously  to  cry 
put  peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace,  and  to  please  all 
denominations,  so  that  a  general  peace,  a  National  Synod, 
might  be  the  result  ?  It  is  evident,  that  the  different  creeds  of 
the  several  denominations  cannot  all  be  scriptural :  there  must 
be  heresies  among  some  of  them ;  because  they  clash,  even  in 
matters  of  importance.  Their  doctrines  are  to  be  known  by 
their  books  of  confession  and  discipline  ;  and  their  ministers 
are  commonly  pledged  to  them,  as  by  an  oath,  when  ordained. 
Jtfow  it  is  impossible  for  any  of  them  to  preach  so  as  to  please 
all  denominations,  without  disguising  and  omitting  some  of  his 
sentiments.  To  do  so,  would  it  not  be  breaking  the  most  sol- 
emn vows,  made  through  ordination  ?  All  would  have  to  drop 
disputed  points,  before  all  could  be  united:  if  so,  there  would 
be  a  union  formed  of  persons  with  broken  vows !  It  then 
would  become  necessary  that  every  minister  should  learn  to 
believe  his  own  creed,  and  every  opposite  one,  before  he  could 
become  a  feather  of  this  variegated  halcyon.  He  must  pos- 
sess the  art  of  pleasing  all,  a  conscience  pliable  to  every  creed, 
and  alive  to  every  touch  of  interest.  He  must  be  a  Lutheran, 
a  Presbyterian,  an  Episcopalian,  an  Independent,  a  Methodist, 
a  Baptist,  a  Roman  Catholic,  a  Quaker,  a  Mennonite,  a  Sha- 
king Quaker,  a  Moravian,  a  Universalian,  a  Republican  and 
a  Royalist,  a  Tattler  and  a  Free  Mason,  a  Jew,  a  Mahometan, 
a  Pagan,  and  an  Infidel !  Lo  I  a  divided  union — a  united  di- 
vision !  A  connexion  neither  cold  nor  hot :  not  cold  nor  in 
different  with  respect  to  temporal  interest,  nor  the  love  of 
fame  ;  nor  hot  in  charity,  nor  zealous  in  maintaining  the  pe- 
culiar doctrines  of  Christ.  Here  the  coldness  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  hotness  on  the  other,  mixed  together,  will  form  such 
a  climate  that  all  manner  of  amphibious  animals  may  live  in 
its  waters,  even  those  of  the  dark  nether  regions  may  live  in 
them  without  freezing. 

Such  a  national  Synod  might  draw  the  cords  of  ministers 
closer  together,  make  their  temporal  interests  common,  in- 
crease their  influence,  magnify  their  grandeur,  and,  by  degrees, 
be  established  by  civil  authority.  There  have  been  too  many 
of  the  clergy,  (especially  of  the  Eastern  aud  Northern  states,) 
complaining  and  railing  against  our  government  for  not  estab- 
lishing the  church  by  civil  authority,  giving  them  their  annual 


13 


sjtipehcjs  by  taxation*    Lo!  what  numbers  of  clandestine  wor  - 
shippers of  monarchy  and  of  law  regulated  or  political  religion, 
who  afe  dissatisfied  with  the  liberties  the  common  and  poor 
people  enjoy.    They  are  enamoured  witfi  the  grandeur  of  the 
monarchs  of  Europe,  like  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  days  of 
Samuel  were  with  those  of  the  surrounding  heathens.  Many 
are  not  satisfied  that  they  enjoy  citizenship,  free  protection  in 
their  cause,  and  have  every  opportunity  to  manifest  their  use- 
fulness ;  whereas  their  predecessors,  the  Apostles,  were  con 
tinually  persecuted,  exposed  to  peril  and  death :  but  they 
cannot  rest  until  they  be  secular  princes— until  a  gorgeous 
king  be  enthroned — until  orders  of  knighthoods  and  nobilities 
be  created  for  America.    Our  civil  constitution,  the  best  pro- 
duction of  the  kind  the  world  ever  saw,  with  outspread  wings, 
equally  protecting  the  rich  and  the  poor,  and  is  the  citadel  of 
our  sacred  temple  of  liberty,  reared  in  our  wide  extended  Un 
ion,  whose  spires  meet  the  clouds— she,  as  if  wisely  inspired, 
knows  what  tends  to  our  national  salvation  :  she  prohibits  the 
clergy  from  getting  temporal  authority.    It  was  the  clergy 
in  most  ages  of  the  world,  though  I  mean  the  corrupted  only, 
who  were  the  cause  of  many  bloody  persecutions,  whenever 
they  possessed  sufficient  power.    Notwithstanding  the  several 
importunate  petitions  for  established  churches,  America,  since 
her  independency,  never  suffered  the  clergy  to  grasp  her  em- 
pyrean sceptre  of  freedom,  and  whose  shores  have  not  been 
*_>ntaminated  with  the  blood  of  martyrs.    Since,  all  direct; 
means  to  the  establishment  of  political  religion  have  proved 
abortive  ;  but  now,  Americans  open  your  eyes  !  another  policy, 
under  the  cloak  of  a  brotherhood,  is  at  work  ;  a  National  Sy- 
nod is  in  view  !    A  majority  of  all  the  clergy,  of  all  denomi- 
nations, with  their  good  reputation,  their  wealth,  their  learn- 
ing, centred  in  a  National  Synod,  their  influence  in  society 
would  be  unparalleled.    All  they  need  is  a  general  under  - 
standing, a  common  interest,  with  amalgamated  influence,  to 
suborn  the  populace  to  send  such  representatives  to  Congress 
subsidiary  to  their  long  premeditated  scheme  ;  the  Constitu- 
tion might  then  be  rejected,  America  enslaved,  the  bloody 
flag  of  persecution  hoisted- — and  they,  like  temporal  lords, 
reigning  in  the  plenitude  of  power.    The  clergy  in  Europe,  a" 
an  early  day,  were  humble  servants  of  Christ;  but  how  scon,, 
when  they  drew  their  cords  close  together,  whole  countric; 
were  overwhelmed  in  one  promiscuous  ruin,  and  drenched 
with  blood  I    O,  America,  thou  sceptred  queen  of  the  world, 
thou  patroness  of  liberty,  look  to  ruined  Europe,  and  tzk 
warning!    O,  free  born  Americans,  be  watchful  over  our 
blessed  constitution.,  lest  it  may  be  undermined  before  ye 


aware  of  it.  It  is  not  enough  that  we  have  it — we  must  als^ 
preserve  it.  Happy  will  it  be  for  America,  if  the  different 
denominations  remain  externally  divided,  whilst  the  union  of 
all  believers  remains  of  a  more  invisible  nature.  Blessed  will 
her  climes  be,  as  long  as  their  temporal  interests  clash  ;  peace- 
ably will  her  citizens  dwell  under  the  fruitful  boughs  of  her 
towering  tree  of  liberty,  whilst  the  clergy  are  not  supported  bv 
civil  authority ;  whilst  they  are  maintained  by  the  gratitude  of 
their  people,  and  venerated  as  the  meritorious  messengers  of 
the  most  High. 

O,  Americans  !  the  best  means  of  preserving  our  liberty,  is 
to  cultivate  the  holy  religion  of  Jesus,  which  is  full  of  truth, 
justice  and  mercy.  Infuse  its  principles  into  the  minds  of  the- 
rising  generation  ;  then  our  extensive  empire  may  blossom 
like  the  rose — produce  new  heroic  Washingtons  and  philo- 
sophic Jelfersons  ;  ages  upon  ages  will  unfold  new  splendors  ; 
whilst  bloody  tyrants  cause  Europe  to  groan  under  oppression, 
with  countries  desolated,  with  fields  smoking  with  human 
blood  and  gore,  with  cities  wrapt  in  fire,  and  incessant  woes 
filling  the  breasts  of  crying  widows  and  orphans — ?a  sight  at 
which  heaven  bleeds  and  angels  drop  tears  of  sympathv.  Vice 
debases  a  nation,  and  is  the  introduction  of  all  the  concomitant 
miseries.  Where  are  now  the  nations  and  empires  of  ancient 
renown?  Where  the  Assyrian,  the  Macedonian,  the  Grecian, 
the  Roman — :once  so  celebrated  among  mankind,  at  whose 
voice  the  surrounding  nations  trembled?  Alas!  are  they  not 
precipitated  from  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  the  abyss  of  eternal 
shame  and  misery,  where  the  ghosts  of  departed  empires  stalk 
about  in  sad  lamentation  of  their  former  glory  !  Their  deso- 
lation and  ruin  followed  their  departure  from  the  path  of  duty, 
virtue  and  honor  | 

Americans  !  I  cannot  conclude  without  alarming  you  a  little 
more,  that  our  liberty  is  endangered.  Behold,  how  many 
dupes  there  are— duped  by  the  worldly  minded  into  their  sec- 
ular  designs.  What  numbers  have  become  so  lukewarm  in 
their  political  as  well  as  religious  principles,  that  it  becomes  a 
matter  of  indifference  for  whom  they  vote  as  our  represenia 
uves  on  the  days  of  our  election.  This  is  the  idle  song  of 
many  :  "  It  matters  not  what  manner  of  politics  one  has  imbi- 
fedy  xvhetker  of  this  or  thai,  if  he  only  means  it  well,;  if  he  can 
pTectie  us  imth  his  s?niles,his  neighborly  turns  shortly  before  the 
day  of  election,  or  even  zuith  a  boxvl  of  grog,  he  shall  have  our 
suJragcP  O,  what  a  shame  for  free-born  Americans  to  be 
ike  Esau,  to  sell  their  birthright  for  a  trifle  ;  to  despise  so  in- 
valuable a  legacy  of  fcod,  our  liberty,  costing  the  blood  of 
many  of  our  forefathers  !    B«!t  it  seems  trial  liberty  ^an  auly 


20 


be  enjoyed  by  a  wise  and  virtuous  people  ;  but  dupes  ami 
asses  cannot  live  without  tyrannical  masters  ! 

I  add  no  more,  lest  I  should  appear  too  political  for  a  man 
in  my  office.  However,  I  claim  no  more  than  citizenship,  and 
the  freedom  of  speech. 

The  humble  servant  of  the  reader. 


Of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  North- Carolina,  and  adjacent  State?, 
held  at  Buffaloe-creek  Church,  in  Cabarrus  county,  Trinity,  A.  D.  1819, 

The  ministers  and  deputies  from  North-Carolina,  &c.  met, 
according  to  the  constitution  of  the  Synod,  (see  Luther,  article 
of  the  constitution  2d,  page  153,)  at  BurTaloe-creek  Church, 
on  Sunday  the  6th  of  June,  1819. 

The  following  members  of  the  Syno*d  met :  the  Rev.  Philip 
Henkel,  from  Tennessee,  and  the  Kev.  Daniel  Moser,  from 
Lincoln  county,  N.  C.  ordained  ministers  ;  the  Rev.  David 
Henkel,  from  Lincoln  county,  N.  C.  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  E. 
Bell,  from  Tennessee,  consecrated  candidates  ;  Frederick 
Hoke,  Esq.  St.  John's  Church,  Daniel  Lutz,  Esq.  and  Pete; 
Hoyle,  Esq.  School-house  Church,  Messrs.  Jacob  Forney, 
"White  Haven,  Isaac  Mauney,  Long-creek,  George  Howis  ami 
Adam  Kloninger,  Philadelphia  Church,  deputies  ;  Mr.  David 
Thronberg  also  took  a  seat  among  us,  as  a  private  friend — all 
from  Lincoln  county,  N.  C. 

The  president  of  the  last  Synod,  which  was  held  in  1817, 
did  not  attend  to  his  duty,  (see  Luther,  page  155,  article  9th 
constitution.)  It  was  said  that  the  Rev.  C.  Storck  was  very 
sick,  at  the  distance  of  about  two  miles  from  the  church  ;  but 
hoping  that  his  sickress  was  not  unto  death,  we  addressed  to 
him  the  following  letter,  and  sent  it  by  Peter  Hoyle,  Esq.  and 
Mr.  Ritchie;  but  when  they  arrived  at  the  house,  he  was 
gone.  They  pursued,  and  overtook  him  going  home,  and 
Sanded  him  this  letter  : 

Bvjfahfi-crcek  Meeting-house,  Cabarrus  Co,  N.  C,  1 
Trinity  Sunday,  June  6th,  1819.  J 
Rev.  sir  :  We,  your  brothers  in  Christ,  are  met  at  this  time 
and  place,  according  to  the  constitution  and  discipline  of  the 
Lutheran  Synod  of  N.  Carolina,  and  adjacent  states,  in  order 
to  Hold  a  Synod  j  but,  to  our  great  mortification,  no  sacra- 


meat  was  appointed  by  you,  the  president,  according  to  thfe 
constitution  of  said  Synod.  We  request  you  to  attend,  as 
prescribed  by  rule.  We  are  strangers,  far  from  home ;  and 
according  to  the  constitution  and  discipline,  we  design  open- 
ing Synod.  If  you  will  not  attend,  we  must  proceed  without 
you ;  but  we  pray  you  to  attend,  for  the  sake  of  the  blessed 
Jesus  and  his  church.  We  will  wait  for  you  till  to-morrow 
9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

Signed  by  all  the  ministers  and  deputies. 

Peter  Hoyle,  Esq.  and  Mr.  Ritchie,  returned  to  us  the  fol- 
lowing written  statement  ;  a  true  copy  of  this  was  delivered 
to  said  Storch,  and  his  answer  was — "I  am  indisposed  ;  and 
if  I  were  not  indisposed,  I  would  not  attend  ;  for  conference 
is  over,  and  there  is  none  now  depending  !"  He  further  or- 
dered his  elders  not  to  open  the  doors,  and  thereby  prevent  a 
Synod  from  being  assembled. 

Signed,  Peter  Hoyle,  and  I.  Ritchie. 

We  then  sought,  amongst  strangers,  an  asylum  for  the  even- 
ing, which,  thank  God,  we  easily  procured. 

Monday,  Jane  7th. — The  ministers  and  deputies  ail  assem- 
bled, as  the  day  before,  at  the  church ;  and  about  9  o'clock. 
A.  M.  a  number  of  persons  met  to  hear  preaching.  The 
doors  being  opened,  the  Rev,  J.  E.  Bell  spoke  from  1.  Co- 
rinthians, c.  10,  v.  15  ;  and  the  Rev.  David  Henkel  addressed 
the  audience  upon  the  subject  of  Antichrist.  After  preach- 
ing, we  retired  to  the  shade  of  the  trees,  near  the  church, 
where,  with  singing  and  praying,  we  opened  Synod.  The  Rev. 
Philip  Henkel  was  elected  President  of  the  Synod,  and  J.  E. 
Bell  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

The  following  petitions  were  read,  viz  :  1.  Petition  from 
four  congregations  in  Tennessee,  praying  that  their  minister, 
J,  E.  Bell,  might  be  advanced  to  the  highest  order  of  the  min- 
istry. 2.  Petitions  from  Granger  and  Hawkins  counties,  Ten. 
prating  for  ministerial  labors  in  their  neighborhood,  stating  a 
wish  to  be  supplied  by  our  Synod.  3.  Petition  from  School  - 
house  church,  jLincoln  county,  in  favor  of  David  Henkel's  ad- 
vancement, and  remonstrating  against  a  harsh  and  illegal  de- 
cision  against  said  Henkel,  at  a  former  illegal  meeting,  and 
declaring  a  final  separation  if  not  attended  to.  4.  Petition 
from  St.  John's  Church,  in  substance  the  same  as  the  3d. 
5.  Petition  from  Philadelphia  Church,  stating  how  unfair  and 
unlawful  means  had  been  taken  to  degrade  the  Rev.  David 
Henkel,  at  a  former  illegal  assembly  ;  and  in  other  respects 
the  same  in  substance  as  the  3d  and  4th.  6.  Letters  from  the 
Hevi  Adam  Miller  and  Jacob  Zink,  were  read,  excusing  thtiy 


absence  from  this  Synod.  7,  All  the  deputies  produced  cer- 
tificates of  their  election,  antl  being  in  full  communion  with 
our  church,  were  entitled  to  a  seat  and  vote.  They  ail  pray- 
ed, unanimously,  that  the  Rev.  David  Henkel  btr  advanced  ; 
stating  that  he  was  a  zealous  preacher  of  the  gospel,  a  good 
citizen,  and  a  moral  and  a  well  informed  man  ;  and  that  all 
the  complaints  heretofore  laid  against  him,  were  founded  :n 
prejudice,  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and  belief.  8.  Ac- 
cording to  the  constitution,  the  Rev.  Joseph  E.  Bell  and  the 
Rev.  David  Henkel  produced  their  theological  treatises,  which 
were  highly  approved.  Then  said  Bell  and  Henkel  were,  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  prayer,  ordained  Bishops  (com- 
monly called  pastors)  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  received 
their  credentials  for  the  same.  9.  The  constitution  of  Union 
Seminary,  in  Greene  county,  Ten.  is  to  be  laid  before  the  Rev. 
Paul  Henkel  and  the  Rev.  Robert  J,  Miller,  and  if  they  ap- 
prove the  same,  it  shall  be  the  constitution  of  the  same,  and  the 
money  collected  for  it  shall  be  given  to  it.  10.  The  Rev. 
Philip  Henkel,  sr  J.  E.  Beil,  or  both,  will  visit  the  petitioners 
In  Granger  and  Hawkins  counties  as  often  as  possible,  until 
the  next  Synod.  11.  The  ministers  reported  that  they  had 
baptised  and  confirmed  since  the  last  Synod,  as  follows  : 

Philip  Henkel 
David  Henkel 
Joseph  E.  Bell 
Adam  Miller 
12.  The  Sync 

members,  requesting  them  to  conform,  for  the  future,  to  the 
constitution  of  the  church.  13.  The  Treasurer  is  ordered  and 
authorised  to  have  the  reports  of  this  Synod  printed,  and  to 
pay  for  the  same  out  of  the  money  now  in  his  hands,  provided 
said  money  is  sufficient  to  do  the  same. 
The  Synod  was  dismissed  with  prayer. 

JOS,  E.  BELL,  Secretary. 

Answer  to  t;.c  Petitions  in  favor  of  David  JTenfccl. 

Trinity  Sunday^and  Monday  1 
folio-wing,  A.  D.  1 8 1 9.  j 
The  constitutional  Synod,  held  at  Buffaloe-creek  Church, 
Cabarrus  county,  N.  C.  took  into  consideration  the  case  of  the 
Rev.  David  Henkel  and  his  congregations  :  First,  the  decis- 
ions against  said  David  Henkel  were  transacted  at  a  time  not 
according  to  rule— see  Luther,  page  153,  nsrticle  2d,  page  1  J6, 
article  13th — therefore,  must  be  void:  Secondly,  the  above 
petitions  recommending  said  David  Henkel  as  a  3-ealou? 


Infants. 

Adults.    Slaves.  Confirmed. 

Buried, 

-  137 

191  105 

8 

-  383 

49        38  135 

11 

-  105 

27  '       1  147 

-  146 

10 

regrets  the 

inexcusable  absence  of  so 

many 

S3 

preacher,  of  good  moral  behavior,  a  good  neighbor,  &c.  and 
nothing  appearing  to  the  contrary  at  the  Synod,  and  as  the 
time  and  place  of  the  Synod  were  sufficiently  published,  we 
consider  it  our  duty  to  advance  said  D.  Henkel  to  the  grade 
of  a  Pastor,  in  conformity  to  the  statement  in  Luther,  p.  175. 
He  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  E.  Bell  were  ordained  by  a  unani- 
mous vote  of  the  Synod. 

PHILIP  HENKEL,  Prudent.  ' 


Ji  SHORT  DEFENCE  LX  MY  OU~J\*  CASE, 

Whereas  several  charges  were  exhibited  against  me  at  the  • 
extempore  meeting  in  April,*  1819,  which  were  then  tried-, 
and  the  decision  published  in  the  minutes  of  April ;  and  as 
many  persons  are  ignorant  as  to  the  nature  of  the  case,  the 
following  statement  relative  thereto  is  made  : 

The  meeting  in  April  was  not  a  lawful  Synod,  not  being, 
convened  on  a  legal  time;  hence  the  decisions  against  me 
could  not  be  binding  on  me  longer  than  till  the  following  legaf. 
Synod,  which  was  held  in  June.  It  is  true  there  has  been  a 
rule,  adopted  in  1817,  which  authorises  the  President,  with 
the  advice  of  two  ministers,  during  vacancy,  to  silence  any  one 
until  the  next  Synod — see  Luther,  page  164.  Now  had  the:: 
conviction  led  them  to  believe  me  guilty  of  the  aforesaid  char- 
ges, they  might  have  silenced  me,  agreeably  to  this  rule,  until 
the  next  Synod  ;  but  it  is  to  he  observed,  that  they  did  not  s: 
lence  me.  Two  days  after  the  trial,  they  gave  me  a  license 
extending  to  the  next  Synod.  The  following  is  a  true  copy 
and  translation  of  said  license  : 

"  Nomine  Jesu.  This  is  to  certify,  that  Mr,  David  HenVel 
has  been  examined  agreeably  to  the  order  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Ministerial  Assembly  of  the  state  of  North-Caro- 
lina, and  adjacent  states,  with  respect  to  his  knowledge  of  the 
Evangelical  doctrine,  and  the  requisite  qualifications  to  bear* 
the  office  of  an  evangelical  teaches  ;  in  consequence  thereof, 
he  is  hereby  authorised  to  preach  publicly,  to  catechise,  and  to 
baptise,  in  the  congregations  of  Lincoln  county,  and  in  all  other 
vacant  congregations  of  the  evangelical  church,  wherever  it 
may  justly  be  requested,  until  the  next  conference.  Testified 

*  Said  meeting  in  April  was  composed  of  the  Rev.  C.  Storck,  Robert  J. 
Milter,  Jacob  Shercr,  Godfrey  Drt-hcr,  and  G.  Shober,  ordained  minister*; 
also  of  Daniel  Moser  and  Michael  Roach,  who  were  then  ordained:  to^eiLc: 
v*Hl>  a  few  candidate.?.  &<§ 


24 


by  us,  the  officers  of  said  conference,  with  the  signatures  of 
our  names,  and  the  ministerial  seal  affixed,  this  30th  April. 
1819.  CHARLES  STORCK. 

[l.  s.]  G.  Shober,  Sec*y. 

The  original  of  this  license  I  yet  have  in  my  possession. 
From  it,  it  is  evident  that  they  fully  acquitted  me  of  every 
charge,  or  at  least  they  acquitted  me  of  all  criminality.  The  li- 
cense says  that  they  had  examined  me,  and  found  me  to  possess 
the  requisite  qualifications  to  bear  the  office  of  the  ministry, 
and  in  consequence  thereof  authorised.  Moreover,  they  also 
offered  me  a  letter  of  recommendation — see  minutes  of  the 
April  meeting,  page  12,  sec.  21.  Notwithstanding,  I  am  pub- 
lished in  said  minutes  as  having  acted  rash,  &c.  Yet,  for  all 
that,  it  seems  I  was  qualified  for  the  ministry, and  entitled  to  a 
letter  of  recommendation.  From  this  the  reader  may  learn, 
that  the  meeting  of  April  did  not  deem  the  charges  alleged 
against  me  so  criminal  as  to  silence  me  ;  otherwise  they  would., 
or  ought  to  have  done  so.  Being  thus  declared,  in  the  afore 
said  license,  to  possess  the  requisite  qualifications  for  the  min- 
*  istry,  and  a  letter  of  recommendation  proposed  to  be  given  me 
by  the  ministers  who  composed  the  April  meeting,  hence  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  my  ordination  by  the  legal  Synod  in 
June  following. 

But  I  am  blamed  for  not  applying  to  Mr.  Storck,  at  the  ex 
piration  of  six  months,  for  a  candidate  license,  &c.  I  answer, 
that  I  had  no  need  to  apply  for  any,  when  I  was  legally  of- 
dained  a  pastor  on  Trinity.  The  license  I  received  from  them 
only  extended  to  the  next  conference,  (or  Synod,)  which  ap- 
pears from  its  contents,  although  their  minutes  say  for  six 
months,  see  page  12  $  or  that  they  had  thus  resolved  that  m\ 
license  should  extend  six  months.  Here  is  a  contradiction. 
Agreeably  to  which  should  I  have  acted?  Agreeably  to  the 
license  which  only  extended  to  the  next  Synod,  or  agreeably 
to  the  minutes,  which  say  that  it  extends  for  six  months?  It 
is  evident  that  I  could  not  have  acted  agreeably  to  both.  Mr. 
Shober  is,  perhaps,  ready  to  plead  errors  ;  but  who  is  to  know 
which  he  means  to  be  an  error — the  license  he  signed,  or  the 
minutes  he  had  printed?  What  makes  this  case  still  more 
doubtful,  is,  that  he  has  since  declared,  in  his  minutes  of  1820, 
"  that  I  received  a  license  as  catechet  for  one  year,"  see  pagt 
5.  Thus  he  gives  three  different  statements  of  my  license  : 
1st,  in  the  minutes  of  April,  "  for  six  months  2d,  in  the  li- 
cense itself,  u  until  the  next  conference and  3d,  in  his  last 
minutes,  u  for  one  year/'  But  whereas,  a  catechet  or  candi- 
date has  no  other  authority  to  show  for  his  administrations  bu: 
opty  his  license — ^vhc  c?*n  blame  me  for  having  acted  agreea- 


25 


bly  to  my  license.  My  license  only  extended  to  the  next  Sy- 
nod :  the  next  Synod  was  held  on  Trinity  following.  Now 
had  I  acted  as  a  catechet  after  my  license  had  expired,  I  would 
have  acted  for  some  length  of  time  without  any  authority.  It 
was  therefore  necessary  for  me  to  be  authorised  anew,  in  some 
manner,  at  the  legal  Synod  on  Trinity,  or  else  to  have  acted 
for  a  while  without  authority.  What  man  of  common  sense 
can  blame  me  for  not  acting  without  authority  ?  The  mem- 
bers of  the  April  meeting  unanimously  agreed,  that  the  decis- 
ions of  a  call-Synod  should  remain  valid  until  the  succeeding 
Synod.  The  following  are  the  words  of  their  resolution,  ex- 
tracted from  their  minutes.  This  resolution  was  formed  at 
the  very  commencement  of  their  session.  Their  minutes  say, 
page  5,  sec.  2,  "  It  was  further  unanimously  acceded  to,  that 
our  reverend  president,  with  the  consent  of  two  or  three  or- 
dained ministers  residing  in  his  vicinity,  is  authorised  to  call 
a  Synod,  and  to  make  other  orders  and  regulations  which  will 
not  admit  of  delay,  and  which  should  be  valid  until  the  suc- 
ceeding meeting  of  the  Synod."  Now  the  license  they  gave 
me  was  exactly  in  conformity  to  this  resolution,  viz  :  to  be 
valid  until  the  succeeding  Synod.  I  acted  agreeably  to  my 
license  and  this  resolution,  by  them  unanimously  adopted.  But 
it  is  a  great  pity  that  they  did  not  act  agreeably  to  this  their 
own  resolution  themselves.  The  April  meeting  was  only  a 
call-Synod — but  Trinity  a  legal  one.  Instead  that  they,  agree- 
ably to  their  own  resolution,  should  have  owned  their  transac- 
tions to  be  valid  until  the  succeeding  meeting  of  the  Synod, 
they  endeavored  to  enforce  their  decisions  upon  the  church  as 
synodical  and  lawful,  for  a  longer  term  than  to  the  meeting  of 
the  next  Synod,  in  open  violation  to  the  constitution,  and  con- 
trary to  their  own  resolution.  None  of  them,  except  the  Rev. 
D.  Moser,  ever  showed  themselves  at  the  legal  Synod  on  Trin- 
ity, to  give  a  legal  account  of  their  transactions. 

The  most  of  the  charges  exhibited  against  me  in  April, 
were  since  published  in  the  papers  ;  hence,  for  the  satisfaction 
of  my  congregations,  and  other  friends,  a  committee  of  investi- 
gation were  appointed  to  examine  said  charges.  They  formed 
answers  to  every  charge.  The  following  is  the  verdict  of  said 
committee,  extracted  from  their  report :  "  We,  the  subscribers, 
constituting  a  committee,  being  jointly  assembled  from  our 
several  congregations,  in  Lincolnton,  in  order  to  investigate 
the  charges  alleged  against  the  Rev.  David  Henkel ;  and  after 
examining  respectable  witnesses,  who  have  accurate  knowledge 
of  these  things,  we  Report,  that  it  would  be  no  interest  nor 
credit  to  us  to  uphold  a  wicked  man;  but  as  long  as  we  find 


26 

no  greater  fault  with  Mr.  D.  Henkel  than  hitherto,  we  can  b)f 
no  means  think  of  dismissing  him  as  our  pastor.  We  are  sat- 
isfied. With  respect  to  the  censure  in  the  publication  against 
the  Rev.  Paul  Henkel,  David's  father,  we  reply,  Where  is  the 
parent  that  would  not  inquire  into  the  affair  of  his  child  when 
evil  reports  are  exhibited  ?  And  would  not  any  parent  rejoice 
to  find  such  reports  contradicted  in  the  very  neighborhood 
where  they  were  first  exhibited  ?  The  Rev.  Paul  Henkel  was 
30  informed  by  persons  of  credit.  But  we  cannot  add  much 
to  the  general  reputation  of  Paul  Henkel  by  our  vindication, 
as  his  standing  in  society  and  merits  are  too  well  known,  for 
a  great  number  of  years,  in  many  parts  of  our  Union."" 

Jacob  Forney,  Henry  Rudisail,  junior,  John  D.  Abernathy^ 
Peter  Stamy,  Jacob  Cloninger,  Jacob  Aderhold,  Isaac  Mauney, 
Jacob  Plonk,  John  Dotters,  George  Seller,  Peter  Hoke,  David 
Thronbergh,  John  Smith,  Christopher  Siegman,  Adam  Keiser. 

Lincclnton,  N.  C.  July  18th,  1820. 

"  We,  the  subscribers,  constituting  select  councils  for  the 
purpose  of  examining  the  report  of  the  committee  of  investi- 
gation, who  had  met  in  Lincolnton  cn  the  18th  of  July,  for  the 
purpose  of  investigating  the  charges  exhibited  against  the  Rev. 
jDavid  Henkel,  declare,  that  we  have  examined  said  report, 
and  do  highly  approve  the  same.  And  from  the  just  respec- 
tability we  entertain  of  the  persons  who  constituted  said  com- 
mittee, we  have  no  doubt  but  they  examined  all  the  charges 
impartially,  agreeably  to  the  testimonies  of  respectable  wit- 
nesses. We  acquiesce  in  their  verdict*  It  is  also  our  opin- 
ion, that  there  are  no  just  grounds  why  the  Rev.  David  Henkel 
should  not  be  respected  as  a  worthy  pastor  of  the  church.  All 
the  charges  exhibited  against  him  have  not  in  the  least  les* 
sened  his  good  reputation,  in  our  view." 

Abraham  Forney,  Philip  Young,  M,  B.  Garner,  Michael 
Cloninger,  John  Leinberger,  Frederick  Kilion,  John  SiiFord, 
Andrew  Derr,  Gottlieb  Helderman,  Moses  Abernathy,  Alex. 
M'Corkle,  Wm.  Rader,  Jacob  Keener,  Jacob  Summit,  of  Leb- 
anon, July  23d,  1820  ;  John  Abernathy,  Wm.  Robinson,  Peter 
Edleman,  Alexander  Reid,  Christian  Heaker,  John  V.  Can- 
non, William  Eeal,  Wm.  Hager,  Miles  D.  Abernathy,  of 
White  Haven,  July  30th,  1820  ;  George  Howis,  Lewis  Clem- 
mer,  Frederick  Howis,  David  Cloninger,  Michael  Rein,  Lewis 
Thronberg,  Jonathan  Thronberg,  Christian  Best,  Jacob  Best, 
Lewis  Leinberger,  Frederick  Leinberger,  sen.  of  Philadelphia, 
August.  6th,  1820  ;  John  Moeney,  John  Boehm,  Frederick 
Carpenter,  of  Beaver-Dam,  August  16th,  1820  ;  Daniel  Grose, 
Anthony  Shitel,  Adam  Segel,  Peter  Michael,  Peter  Vhm, 


9 

Peter  Sane,  Baniel  Lutz,  Esq.  John  Rudeseel,  Jacob  Haas*,. 
Samuel  Yount,  Jacob  Probst,  Jacob  Heinhart,  Daniel  Segef, 
Daniel  Michael,  Henry  Hoke,  John  Segel,  of  School-House., 
August  19th,  1820}  Peter  Little,  Esq.  George  Smith,  Joseph 
Isenhower,  Henry  Stein,  Christian  Sammet,  Philip  Hetrick, 
Daniel  Bowman,  Henry  Yount,  John  Isenhower,  sen.  John 
Stein,  sen.  John  Miller,  Henry  Gross,  John  Moser,  Henry 
Dejenhart,  Daniel  Hoke,  Anthony  Moose,  Lewis  Haler,  juuv 
Frederick  Hoke,  Esq.  of  St.  John's,  August  14th,  1820. 

I  must  observe,  that  it  is  my  private  opinion  that  my  accu- 
ser would  not  have  gone  to  the  extent  he  did  in  opposing  me, 
had  he  not  been  wrongly  informed  in  several  instances, and  had 
tilings  not  been  misrepresented.  I  have  also  reasons  to  be^ 
iieve  that  some  others  endeavored  to  fan  the  fires  of  conten- 
tion. But  whether  he  would  wilfully  wrong  me,  or  any  other 
man,  I  leave  to  God  and  to  his  own  conscience  to  judge.  I 
positively  declare,  (although  he  may  differ  from  me  in  his  re- 
ligious sentiments,)  that  I  entertain  no  private  animosity 
against  his  person,  nor  do  1  wish  that  any  of  my  friends 
should.  Many  of  his  relations  and  family  connexions  are  res- 
pectable people,  and  a  goodly  number  are  friends  to  us  both. 
Neither  have  I  any  hatred  against  any  of  his  friends,  in  con- 
sequence of  our  contest.  Several,  and  perhaps  all,  of  the  com- 
mittee and  councils  who  subscribed  the  above  verdict  in  my 
favor,  are  friends  to  him  as  well  as  to  me  ;  nor  have  they  sub- 
scribed their  names  to  it  with  a  view  to  injure  his  reputation. 
The  reasons  I  have  for  thinking  so  are,  because  they,  in  a 
general  way,  were  opposed  to  all  harsh  measures.  I  am  much 
obliged  to  the  committee  and  tjie  councils,  for  their  christian 
ipd  benevolent  advice. 


Shown  why  the  Rev.  Charles  Storck,  Hubert  J.  Miller,  Gottlieb  Shober,  God- 
frey Dreher,  and  Jacob  Sherer,  full  ordained  Ministers,  who  composed  the. 
meeting,  of  April,  1819,  and  all  such  as  they  then  and  since  ordained,  and 
their,  candidates  and  catechcts,  and  such  other  ministers  who  since  stand 
connected  with  them,  cease  tp  be  a  regular  Lutheran  Synod  of  this  and 
the  adjacent  slates ;  and  why  my  father,  brother  Philip,  and  myself,  refu- 
sed *p  join  in  with  them  on  Trinity,  1620,  at  Lincplntuu. 

It  is  not  ray  intention  to  notice  all  the  sneers  and  frivolities 
of  individuals,  btit  to  show  to  the  Lathe  ran  community  where 
yl  the  aforesaid  ministers  have  departed  from  some  of  the 
vuhp  and  doctrines  of  the  eharch.    Indeed,  tfcere  nre  some  c* 


£8 

this  connexion  who  have  not  departed  as  far  as  others ;  but  as 
they  belong  to  one  body,  they  are  partakers  of  one  common 
cause.  The  Rev.  Joseph  E.  Bell  is  certainly  a  very  great  ex- 
ception to  any  of  the  rest,  both  as  it  respects  his  talents  and 
conduct.  But  O,  eloquent  Bell !  it  was  thy  misfortune  to  join 
this  connexion.  Hadst  thou  known  things  and  persons  prop- 
erly, perhaps  thou  wouldst  not  have  taken  this  step. 

The  following  sections  will  give  a  general  view  of  their  de- 
viation from  the  rules  and  doctrines  of  the  church,  &c. 

1.  Breach  of  the  constitution  in  1819.  It  must,  at  first 
view,  be  evident  to  all  orderly  and  decent  persons,  that  no  well 
regulated  church  can  be  preserved  as  such,  without  adhering 
to  certain  Christian  rules,  founded  upon  a  just  constitution. 
What  would  be  the  result  in  a  state,  provided  a  majority  of 
representatives  could  do  as  they  pleased,  without  submitting 
to  a  constitution, or  deviate  from  it  whenever  they  saw  proper? 
The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  this  and  the  adjacent  states 
had  adopted  a  constitution,  and  which  was  legally  amended  in 
1817,  when  translated  into  the  English  language.  Said  con- 
stitution wisely  specified  the  time  and  place  of  the  meeting  oi 
the  Synod,  viz :  "  Annually  on  Trinity  Sunday,  in  rotation  of 
counties."  This,  indeed,  was  a  wise  arrangement  to  prevent 
designing  men  from  assembling  in  a  clandestine  manner,  at  an 
improper  time  and  place,  when  they  might  obtain  a  favorite 
point  which  they  knew  they  could  not  in  a  full  Synod.  The 
succeeding  Synod  after  the  year  1817,  was  appointed  to  meet; 
according  to  rule,  on  Trinity,  1819.  But  contrary  to  rule,  the 
meeting  in  April  was  called,  not  merely  for  the  purpose  o) 
consulting  on  things  which  would  not  admit  of  delay,  and  then 
to  appear  at  the  legal  Synod,  either  to  have  their  decisions  ap 
proved  or  rejected:  instead  of  that,  they  imposed  their  trans- 
actions as  synodical  upon  the  church,  and  published  those  tc 
be  stubborn  who  did  not  attend  at  their  meeting.  The  Rev. 
Philip  Henkel  requested  them  by  letters,  which  were  re- 
ceived and  read  in  April,  to  meet  on  Trinity  following,  as 
prescribed  by  rule  ;  also  stating  that  he  had  received  no  timely 
nor  official  notice  of  their  premature  meeting.  Had  he  even 
been  informed,  yet  they  had  no  legal  authority  to  require  his 
presence,  since  the  very  ends  they  assign  for  their  premature 
meeting  are  as  unconstitutional  as  the  time  of  meeting  itself. 
The  reasons  assigned  for  meeting  sooner  than  the  It- gal  time, 
were,  because  they  wished  to  send  a  deputy  to  Baltimore  t<. 
meet  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  who  assembled  on  Trinity  in 
order  to  establish  a  General  Synod.  But,  in  the  first  place,  1: 
must  be  observed,  that  the  plan  they  proposed  and  adopted  for 


a  General  Synod  is  contrary  to  the  seventh  article  of  the  Augs- 
burgh  Confession  of  Faith,  as  is  sufficiently  demonstrated  in 
the  preceding  oration.  Neither  could  they  establish  a  General 
Synod,  on  the  aforesaid  plan,  without  altering  and  amending 
the  constitution,  as  it  does  no  where  authorise  the  Synod  to 
adopt  any  such  thing.  The  constitution,  inasmuch  as  it  makes 
the  Augsburgh  Confession  of  Faith  the  point  of  union,  is  ex- 
pressly against  said  plan.  The  constitution  cannot  be  altered 
nor  amended,  unless  two-thirds  of  all  the  ministers  and  depu- 
ties agree:  See  Luther,  page  156.  No  two-thirds  ever  al- 
tered or  amended  it  since  1817,  for  there  was  no  lawful  Synod 
appointed  until  Trinity,  1819.  Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  they 
did  not  only  violate  the  constitution  in  meeting  too  soon,  but 
also  in  adopting  apian  unauthorised t>y  the  constitution,  and 
repugnant  to  the  seventh  article  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession 
of  Faith. 

Provided  the  plan  of  the  establishment  of  a  General  Synod 
had  been  so  laudable  an  undertaking,  why  did  they  not  defer 
it  until  the  meeting  of  the  legal  Synod,  and  suffer  it  to  be 
openly  investigated  agreeably  to  rule?  Why  this  illegal,  pre- 
mature step  in  a  good  cause  ?  Would  it  have  been  impossible 
for  North-Carolina  ever,  at  any  other  time,  to  have  got  into 
the  connexion  of  a  General  Synod  with  Pennsylvania,  but  only 
on  Trinity,  1819  ?  Since  when  has  North-Carolina  become  so 
deplorably  dependent  on  Pennsylvania,  that  she  must  break 
her  own  constitution  to  get  into  connexion  ?  It  seems  she 
must  do  evil,  that  good  ma)7  come  !  Is  it  not  a  wonder  that 
they  did  not  first  obtain  the  consent  of  all  the  ministers  and 
congregations,  in  so  great  an  alteration?  Now  if  their  inten- 
tions were  good,  as  they  declare,  why  did  they  not  meet  on 
the  regular  time,  and  give  satisfaction  of  their  conduct,  espe- 
cially when  Philip  Ilenkel  informed  them  that  he  had  no  time- 
ly nor  official  notice  of  their  meeting  ?  They  did  not  all  go  to 
J5alt;more....none  but  one.  Is  it  reasonable  to  think  that  he, 
as  also  the  candidates  of  Tennessee,  should  lose  their  votes, 
:.nd  obey  what  the  others  would,  without  their  knowledge  or 
coRsent,  arbitrarily  impose  upon  them  ?  It  is  also  to  be  ob~ 
served,  that  they,  of  Tennessee,  were  not  all  who  were  not 
present  in  ApriLg  others  were  absent,  as  well  as  they.  The 
offence  of  breaking  the  constitution  may,  at  first  view,  seem  a 
light  matter;  but  it  was  mutually  agreed  upon — it  served  as  a 
mutual  promise,  or  as  a  truce:  now  if  the  breaking  or  disre- 
garding of  a  promise,  or  truce,  or  the  falsifying  of  one's  word, 
is  not  considered  criminal,  then  we  need  to  make  no  distinc- 
tion between  truth  and  falsehood,  and  fidslity  and  treachery. 


2.  The  constitution  denied  by  their  president,  Charles Stor$k$ 
<$nd  their  secretary,  G.  Shober,  in  1820,  at  Lincolnton,  N.  C. 
The  Rev.  Joseph  E.  Bell,  my  father,  my  brother  Philip  Hen- 
kel,  myself,  and  our  deputies,  were  willing  to  govern  and  be 
governed  by  the  regular  established  constitution.  Thus  we 
were  willing  to  be  censured  legally,  provided  it  should  have 
been  proved  that  we  had  acted  improperly.  But  the  Rev. 
Storck  and  Shober  denied  that  we  had  a  ratified  constitution. 
That  they  did  so,  cannot  only  be  proved  by  a  crowd  of  wit- 
nesses, but  Mr.  Shober  also  owns  it  in  their  minutes  of  1820. 
Was  it  reasonable  that  we  should  have  been  governed  without 
a  constitution  ?  Should  we  have  suffered  them  to  have  judged 
us  without  a  law,  and  they  not  be  judged  at  all?  The  Pope- 
only,  in  former  times,  judged,  but  refused  to  be  judged;  for 
none  dared  say  to  him,  what  dost  thou  ?  But  what  may  be  the 
reason  that  these  two  men,  who,  in  regard  to  their  age,  de- 
serve to  be  respected,  had  to  shelter  themselves  under  so  bare- 
faced an  assertion,  in  denying  that  we  had  a  ratified  constitu- 
tion ?  Most  melancholy  circumstance  !  Aged  fathers,  soon 
retiring  to  the  silent  mansions  of  the  dead,  must  yet,  when 
their  course  is  nearly  finished,  justify  a  misconduct  at  the  very 
peril  of  truth  !  Why  did  they  deny  the  constitution  ?  They 
well  knew  that  they  had  violated  it  in  1819;  that  we  were 
about  to  bring  them  to  an  account  for  it ;  that,  agreeably  to  it, 
their  transactions  in  April  would  be  declared  void.  Now, 
rather  than  to  submit  to  law  and  justice,  like  humble  and  God- 
fearing men,  they  grasped  the  last  desperate  means,  which  was 
the  denying  of  the  constitution,  and  an  attempt  to  accomplish 
their  ends  by  a  majority  without  a  law,  or  by  a  lawless  ma- 
jority. In  what  manner  is  it  possible  to  excuse  them  ?  Could 
they  have  forgotten  that  they  had  a  constitution  ?  Can  they 
plead  this !  (a)  Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Shober  could  have 
forgotten  it,  when  he  had  compiled  it — when  he  certified  with 
the  signature  of  his  name,  in  the  preface  of  said  book,  that  the 
.Synod,  in  1817,  had  adopted  it — when  he  mentions  the  names 

(a)  The  case  of  the  Rev,  C.  Storck  is  extremely  pitiful.  He  was  a  man  of 
good  standing,  highly  venerated,  and  very  popular.  Uut  being  aged,  full  of 
bodily  infirmities,  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  have  a  tendency  to  impair 
his  mind,  and  also  being"  pertinaciously  influenced  by  aafeubtilc  individual  ail 
this  may  have  led  him  astray,  and  may  measurably,  in  the  eye  of  charity,  ex- 
tenuate his  misconduct.  The  Rev.  Hubert  J.  Miller  was  not  present  on  Mon- 
day, when  the  constitution  was  denied:  but  afterwards  he  made  Shober  ae 
knowledge  his  error.  Uut  did  said  Miller  also  insist  (as  some  of  the  deputies 
did)  that  the  illegal  transactions  in  April,  1819,  sbould  be  recalled,  and  even 
cue  be  tried  by  the  constitution,  after  it  was  owned  ?  No.  Had  he,  his  conduct 
would  be  highly  applauded.  What  did  it  signify  tb  qv/n.  a  QOiiiututioijj  nTjti 
tiot  to  act  agreeably  t,p  ;t  ? 


of  the  committee  who  examined  it — when  he  calls  it  a  const** 
tution — when  he  had  1500  copies  printed — -when  he  sold  it  a*i 
such — and  when  people  bought  it  under  that  impression  ?  Was 
it  net  the  constitution,  then  it  was  a  forged  book  by  himself, 
which  he  imposed  upon  the  community  :  but  was  it,  (which, 
beyond  all  dispute*  it  was,)  is  it  not  shocking  that  he  could 
have  the  face  to  deny  it  !  But  were  Storck  and  Shober  only 
culpable  ?  No.  The  others  were  silent  when  the  constitution 
was  denied.  They  elected  said  Storck  and  Shober  as  their 
officers  the  very  same  day;  and,  under  them,  a  pretended  Sy- 
nod was  opened.  A  Synod  having  officers  denying  the  con- 
stitution— a  Synod  without  a  law — a  lawless  caucus  !  Wha$*J 
man  of  prudence,  who  wishes  to  support  a  good  character, 
would  associate  with  a  lawless  club?  What  man  of  common 
sense  would  suffer  himself  to  be  judged  by  the  lawless  ?  Had 
we  united  with  thtm  in  this  situation,  we  should  have  rendered 
ourselves  ridiculous  in  the  sight  of  all  lovers  of  rule  and  order. 

But  this  assembly,  some  time  after  the  constitution  was  de  - 
nied, owned  it  again ;  yet  they  never  recalled  the  former  ille- 
gal transactions  of  April,  1819.  They  were  so  far  from  it, 
that  they  proposed  to  ratify  said  transactions.  (See  their 
minutes  of  1820,  page  11,  sec.  12.)  By  this  they  wish  their 
transactions  to  wear  the  aspect  in  the  eye  of  the  public,  as  if 
now  they  were  lawful.  But  the  very  proposition  they  adopted 
to  ratify  them  anew,  proves  that  they  were  unlawful.  Had 
their  transactions  before  been  lawful,  what  need  was  there  to- 
ratify  them  again  ?  Lawful  things  need  no  new  ratification, 
because  they  are  lawful  in  themselves.  How  can  wrong 
things  be  made  rfght  by  a  ratification  ?  A  ratification  of  wrong 
things  is  the  same  as  persisting  in  a  wrong.  Or,  indeed,  caii 
wrong  be  right  ?  Thus  they  must  have  ratified  wrong  things- 
as  right  ones  do  not  need  it.  What  may  have  been  the  reason 
that  Storck  and  Shober  were  not  silenced  for  their  misconduct,, 
when  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Franklow  was  silenced  in  April,  1819,  for 
six  months,  for  no  greater  fault,  and  perhaps  not  as  great  ? 

3.  This  connexion  deviating  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  with  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  most  of  denominations  have  certain  creeds,  agreeablv* 
to  which  their  ministers  are  to  teach,  and  by  which  they  are 
distinguished.  The  Lutheran  church  is  distinguished  from 
Others,  in  her  peculiar  doctrines  with  respect  to  the  sacraments 
and  the  person  of  Christ.  This  church,  also,  bus  all  along  re- 
cognised the  Augsburgli  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Luther1^ 
Catechism.  Lutherans,  when  they  are  confirmed  as  members, 
of  the  church,  asseverate  that  they  believe  the  doctrines  the} 


were  taught,  agreeably  to  Luther's  Catechism :  and  when  a 
minister  is  ordained,  though  confirmed  before,  yet  he  also  vows 
obedience  to  the  Augsburgh  Confession  of  Faith.  Why  are 
men  called  Lutherans  ?  Is  it  not  because  they  believe  the  doc- 
trines Luther  taught?  No  one,  I  hope,  thus  denominates 
himself  because  he  trusts  in  Luther  the  same  as  in  Christ ; 
hut  because  he  has  learnt  his  doctrines  from  him  ;  hence  be- 
cause he  is  his  scholar.  Now  how  can  such  be  Luther's  scho- 
lars who  deny  his  doctrines  ?  If  any  one  teaches  contrarv  to 
what  Luther^  dii,  he  cannot  be  his  scholar,  but  rather  his 
teacher. 

The  presence  of  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  supper,  is  professedly  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran 
hurch.  But  this  body  of  men  do  not  teach  this  doctrine  as 
j  Luther  did,  nor  according  to  the  Augsburgh  Confession  of 
Faith  ;  which  is  not  only  evident  from  various  testimonies,  but 
also  from  their  answer  to  Mr.  J.  Hill.  (See  their  minutes  of 
1S20,  page  18.)  They  say  there,  u  We  do  not  believe,  nor 
teach,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is 
corporeally  received  along  with  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's 
supper."  The  word  corporeal,  signifies  the  having  of  a  body  : 
the  corporeal  body  of  Christ,  or  the  body  of  Christ,  having  a 
body  !  Wonderful  expression  !  There  is  no  body  r%  the  uni- 
verse unless  it  be  corporeal:  if  it  were  not,  it  could  not  be  a 
body.  Even  a  spiritual  body  is  corporeal — that  is,  it  is  a  bod}-. 
Why  did  this  connexion  not  express  themselves  grammatical- 
ly? Whv  this  unpardonable  tautology?  "We  do  not  receive 
the  body,"  &c.  "  corporeally  :"  or,  the  body  bodily— or,  the 
body'  as  having  a  body  !! !  Were  there  no  scholars  among 
them  ?  There  certainly  were.  If  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  at  all  received, they  must  be  received  corporeally  ;  because 
there  is  no  body,  &c.  unless  it  be  corporeal— that  is,  there  can 
be  no  bod?  unless  it  be  a  body.  It  is  evident  that  they  mean 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not  received  in  the  holy 
.Eucharist.  This  is  still  plainer  from  their  subsequent  expres- 
sion, when  they  say,  viz  :  u  But  the  true  believer  does  spirit- 
ually receive  and  partake  of  the  same  through  faith  in  Jeslfts 
Christ,  and  all  the  saving  benefits  of  his  death  and  passion." 
Agreeably  to  this,  his  body  and  blood  are  not  really  present 
and  administered,  because  they  admit  no  other  partaking  than 
a  spiritual  one  by  faith.  The  unbeliever,  therefore,  does  not 
become  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  by  receiving 
them  in  unbelief:  in  short,  he  receives  nothing  but  bread  and 
wine. 

I  will  now  compare  tfcts^  their  doctrine,  with  the  Augjsburgh 


Confession  of  Faith,  and  Dr.  Luther's  own  declarations,  in  his 
catechism  and  elsewhere,  in  regard  to  this  subject.  It  is  not 
my  intention  to  dispute  with  other  denominations,  (in  this  sec- 
tion,) who  always  have  differed  from  the  Lutheran  church  on 
this  point ;  but  merely  to  show  that  this  connexion,  who  call 
themselves  Lutherans,  do  not  believe  the  Lutheran  doctrine. 
The  tenth  article  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession  of  Faith,  posi- 
tively says :  "  Of  the  Lord's  supper,  we  teach  thus,  That  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  there  really  present,  and  admin- 
istered under  the  external  signs  of  bread  and  win*."  (A)  If 
Christ's  body,  &c.  be  really  present  and  administerai,  it  must 
be  a  real  (not  an  imaginary)  body,  &c.  That  which  is  not 
corporeal,  is  not  a  real  body  nor  blood.  Now  if  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  really  present  and  administered,  how  can 
the  sentiments  of  these  men  be  agreeable  to  this  article,  when 
they  deny  that  the  body  ?  nd  blood  of  Chrfst  are  corporeally 
received — especially  as  the  term  corporeal/is  the*same  as  bod- 
ily ?  The  article  says,  "  The  body  and^blood  of  Christ  are 
administered,"  &c.  It  does  not  say  administered  to  the  true  be- 
liever only,  but  simply  administered.  Lest  any  person  should 
think  that  my  comment  on  this  article  should  be  wrong,  I  shall 
here  translate  Dr.  Luther's  own  words  from  the  German,  as  he 
undoubtedly  must  have  understood  tn*e  true  meaning  of  the 
Augsburgh  Confession  of  Faith  better  than  any  man  in  mod- 
ern times,  when  it  was  penned  by  his  coadjutor  iYftlanchton, 
and  examined,  approved,  and  subscribed  by  himself.  The  fol- 
lowing are  his  own  words,  taken  from  his  larger  catechism  ; 
"What  is  the  sacrament  of  the  altar?  Answer  :  it  is  the  true 
body  anjj  blood  of  Christ  in  and  with  bread  and  wine,  fcm- 
mandecr  by  Christ's  word,  for  us  christians  to  eat  to 
drink.''  Immediately  after,  he  says  :  "  The  word,  I  s^,  is 
that  which  makes  and  distinguishes  the  sacrament,  that  it  is 

(/>)  This  article  is  quoted  from  the  English  translation,  in  the  book  called 
Luther,  b^Mr.  Shober;  but  the  t>riginal  German  is  more  emphatical.  The: 
literal  trJ^lation  is  as  follows  :  "  Of  the  supper  of  the  Lord,  it  is  also  taught, 
that  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present,  under  the  figure  of 
bread  and  wine,  in  the  Lord's  supper,  and  which  are  administered  and  recei- 
ved: Wherefore/ the  contrary  doctrine  is  rejected."  I  must  also  observe^ 
that  Luther  frequently  calls  bread  the  body  of  Christ,  &c.  which  might  leaf! 
some  to  think  that  he  taught  a  change  of  the  elements ;  yet  he  denies  this.  But 
the  reason  is  obvious;  he  taught  that  the  Lord's  body  is  connected  with  the 
brcarjP&.c. ;  hence,  for  this  reason  only,  he  sometimes  calls  it  the  Lord's  body. 
Th^t  this  is  the  case,  is  evident  from  various  passages  of  his  wolks.  Neither 
did  he  teach,  as  some  of  the  vulgar  blasphemously  represent,  that  Christ's 
body  and  blood  were  received  in  a  gross,  carnal  manner,  and  devoured  by 
pieces,  like  the  eating  of  other  meat,  Sec.  Although  it  is  taught  that  Christ's 
real  body  and  blood  are  eaten  and  drank  with  the  mouth,  yet  every  communi- 
cant receives  his  whole  body  and  all  his  blood,  inconceivable  by  human  rfason, 
and  divindv  rirt  st^rious,    Th'rs  is  Luthei's  doctvine, 


not  merely  bread  and  wine,  but  that  it  is,  and  is  called,  Christ's 
body  and  blood.  With  this  word,  thou  mayest  strengthen  thy 
conscience,  and  say,  if  an  hundred  thousand  devils,  together 
with  all  fanatics,  bluster  out,  how  can  bread  and  wine  be 
Christ's  body  and  blood?  Yet  I  know  that  all  spirits  and  scho- 
lars in  one  crowd,  are  not  as  wise  as  the  Divine  Majesty  in 
his  little  finger.  Here  are  Christ's  words :  4  Take,  eat,  this 
is  my  body  ;  drink  ye  all  of  it,  this  is  the  New  Testament  in 
my  blood,"  &c.  Further  he  saith  :  u  If  even  a  boy  receives  or 
administers  the  sacrament,  yet  he  receives  the  proper  sacrament, 
that  is,  Christ's  body  and  blood,  as  well  as  he  that  treats  it  in 
the  most  worthy  manner,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  founded  upon 
human  holiness,  but  upon  the  word  of  God.  And  as  no  holy 
one  upon  earth,  yea,  no  angel  in  heaven,  can  cause  bread  and 
wine  to  become  Christ's  body  and  blood,  therefore  no  one  can 
alter  nor  destroy  it,  notwithstanding  it  be  abused.  For  the 
sake  of  the  person  or  unbelief,  the  word  by  which  it  became  a 
sacramentTand  by  which  it  was  instituted,  is  not  falsified.  He 
doth  not  say,  if  ye  believe,  or  if  ye  be  worthy,  ye  have  my  body 
and  blood,  but  take,  eat  and  drink,  this  is  my  body  and  blood. 
Moreover,  this  do,  (viz.  what  I  now  do,  institute,  give  unto 
you,  and  command  to  receive,)  that  is  as  much  as  to  say,  you 
may  be  worthy  or  unworthy, you  have  here  his  body  and  blood, 
by  virtue  of  these  words  which  are  added  to  bread  and  vvine. 
Such  notice  and  retain  well,  for  upon  these  words  all  our  foun- 
dation, fortress  and  defence  are  built,  against  all  errors  and 
delusions  which  ever  came,  or  yet  may  come."  Thus  far  Lu  - 
ther's larger  catechism.  In  his  book  Wittenberg,  fol.  243,  he 
say£:  41  Whereas,  I  see  that  heresies  and  delusions  increase, 
the  longer,  the  more,  and  the  raging  of  Satan  does  not  cease. 
LeHRone  may  henceforth  whilst  I  live,  or  after  my  death  in 
future,  prostitute  me  and  my  writings  to  strengthen  their  er- 
rors, as  the  fanatics  of  the  sacrametit  and  baptism  already  do, 
I  shall  therefore,  with  this  instrument  of  writing,  confess,  be- 
fore God  and  the  World,  my  faith,  from  subject  to  s^ject,  to 
which  I  intend  to  adhere  until  death. ...(God  help  me™  depart 
from  this  world,  and  to  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  ol 
Christ.)  And  lest  any  person,  after  my  death,  should  say, 
*  if  Doctor  Luther  was  yet  alive,  he  would  teach  and  hold  tjiis 
or  that  article  otherwise,  as  he  bad  not  sufficiently  studied  it  : 
against  this  I  now  protest  as  then,  and  then  as  now,  that,th^pugi '■■ 
the  grace#>f  God,  I  have  studied  all  these  articles,  and  dili- 
gently compared  them,  again  and  again,  with  the  Scriptures, 
and  would  certainly  defend  them."  Then  immediately  he 
saith :  "  Through  the  grace  of  God,  I  have  learnt  to  know  a 
great  share  of  SStan*    If  he  can  misrepresent  and  confuse  the 


word  of  God,  what  should  he  not  do  with  mine,  or  any  other's 
words?"  Further  he  saith  :  "I  count  them  all  in  one  cake, 
that  is,  as  sacramentarians  and  fanatics,  which  also  they  are* 
who  will  not  believe  that  the  Lord's  bread  in  the  Lord's  S  p- 
per  is  his  real,  natural  [human]  body,  whom  the  wicked,  or 
Judas,  receives  with  his  mouth,  as  well  as  St.  Peter,  and  all 
saints.  Who  will  not  believe  this,  (I  say,)  may  let  me  alone, 
and  hope  by  no  means  any  fellowship  with  me."  Thus  far 
Luther.  I  also  refer  the  reader  to  the  Church  History  of 
Milner,  abridged  by  Townsend,  page  710,  7 It.  He  will  find 
there,  that  Luther  invariably  maintained  the  real  presence  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist,  and  refused  broth- 
erly fellowship  with  those  who  denied  it. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence 
of  Christ's  body  *nd  blood  in  the  Eucharist,  is  not  an  inven- 
tion of  my  own,  nor  a  novel  doctrine,  as  has  been  represented 
heretofore.  Should  any  one  think  that  Luther  was  wrong,  let 
him  openly  declare  it,  and  forsake  the  Lutheran  church,  and 
join  such  as  are  of  his  opinion.  It  is  no  disgrace  to  be  called 
a  Calvinist  or  Methodist,  &:c.  as  there  are  honorable  men  who 
are  thus  denominated.  No  one  would  be  despised  by  men  of 
reason  if  he  were  to  do  so,  provided  his  conscience  did  not 
suffer  him  to  believe  Luther's  doctrine.  But  is  it  not  a  mis- 
erable thing,  that  this  connexion  of  ministers  deny  Luther's 
doctrine,  and  yet  endeavor  to  cover  themselves  with  his  cloak  ? 
As  it  respects  myself  and  my  associates,  we  consider  our  vows 
too  sacred  to  break  in  fellowshipping  this  connexion,  who  deny 
the  very  doctrine  Lutherans  vow  to  maintain,  especially  as  we 
are  not  convinced  that  it  is  unscriptural.  Were  we  convinced 
by  the  scriptures  that  it  was  wrong,  we  should  not  think  it 
wrong,  nor  hesitate  to  renounce  it  and  the  Lutheran  church. 

4.  My  ordination  defended  upon  legal  grounds  ;  and,  also> 
upon  the  concessions  of  my  opponents,  in  receiving  the  Rev. 
Jos.  E.  Bell  without  a  re-ordination. 

Being  assailed  in  various  respects,  my  ordination  also  has  not. 
escaped.  A  man  who  preaches  and  administers  the  sacraments 
without  a  proper  authority,  must  be  an  impostor,  and  all  per- 
sons receiving  him  knowingly  are  partakers  of  his  guilt.  Now 
should  I  not  be  lawfully  authorised  to  exercise  the  office  of  a 
pastor,  (or  bishop,)  then  I  certainly  wrould  be  an  impostor,  and 
the  people  who  receive  me  a  horde  of  ignorant  dupes,  or  dis- 
orderly persons.  But  should  I  undeniably  prove  that  I  am 
legally  ordained,  what  must  one  think  of  those  who  report  that 
I  am  not?  Not  only  for  my  own  sake,  but  also  for  the  sake 
of  my  well  beloved,  judicious,  and  respectable  congregations, 
who  cordially  receive  my  administrations,  not  becau.se  they 


30 


are  duped,  but  they  recognise  my  legal  authority,  I  am  cou^ 
strained  to  make  this  defence. 

I  was  not  ordained  when  a  mere  novice  ;  but  I  had  been  a 
probationer  ever  since  the  Synod  which  was  held  in  1813, 
when  I  received  a  license  ;  and  besides  that,  I  was  licensed 
some  considerable  length  of  time  before,  by  three  ministers. 
At  every  Synod  held  until  I  was  ordained  a  pastor,  I  was  de- 
clared qualified  for  the  office  of  the  ministry,  and  authorised. 
Ever  since  the  year  1815,  1  was  authorised  to  administer  the 
rite  of  confirmation  and  the  Lord's  supper  ;  and,  in  1816,  I 
was  consecrated,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose— (See  minutes  of  1815,  1816,  and  1817.)  Thus  I  had 
preached  upwards  of  seven  years  to  the  date  of  my  ordination  ; 
authorised  at  two  sessions  of  the  Synod  to  act  as  catechet,  and 
at  three  to  administer  all  the  ordinances ;  and  at  the  extem- 
pore meeting  in  April,  1819,  notwithstanding  all  the  charges 
exhibited  against  me,  1  was  still  declared  sufficiently  qualified 
for  the  ministry,  &c.  I  will  leave  it  to  the  reader,  whether  a 
man  who  is  upon  trial  (nearly,  or  quite)  seven  years,  should 
not  either  be  advanced  or  else  dismissed.  I  must,  indeed,  be 
a  very  complicated  character,  that  I  could  not  be  found  out, 
in  seven  years'  time,  whether  I  deserved  an  ordination,  or  to  be 
finally  dismissed  !  My  ordination  was  not  performed  in  a  pri- 
vate manner,  nor  at  an  improper  time  ;  but  when  and  where 
the  constitution  had  directed.  Were  there  any  charges  against 
me,  why  did  those  who  had  them  not  attend  at  the  legal  Sy- 
nod, and  allege  them  ?  The  time  was  sufficiently  published, 
not  only  by  letters,  but  also  by  the  constitution.  If  any  of  the 
members  of  the  April  meeting  were  against  my  being  ordain- 
ed, why  did  they  not  attend  at  the  Synod  as  they  were  reques- 
ted ?  They  then  could  have  had  a  seat  and  vote  :  hence,  if 
they  could  have  produced  sufficient  reasons,  they  might  have 
prevented  my  ordination.  Why  did  they  not  ?  It  is  in  vain 
for  them  to  say,  that,  because  the  ordination  was  performed  by 
one  man,  (the  Rev.  Philip  HenkelQ  that,  therefore,  it  must  be 
unlawful.  Philip  Henkel  did  not  perform  it  upon  his  own  au- 
thority, but  by  the  consent  and  solicitation  of  the  Synod,  as  he 
was  directed  by"  rule.  Of  all  persons,  the  members  of  the 
April  meeting  and  their  associates  ought  to  say  the  very  least 
about  the  lawfulness  of  any  thing,  when  they  did  not  cnly  vio- 
late the  law,  but  when  their  officers  also  denied  that  they  had 
a  ratified  constitution.  It  must  be  out  of  the  question  to  talk 
about  legal  or  illegal  transactions,  when  there  is  no  law.  And 
if  their  doctrine  be  true,  which  has  been  preached  up  by  some 
of  them,  that,  "in  extraordinary  cases,  deviations  from  rules 
or  constitution  are  often  necessary  and  profitable,    (sec  their 


o7 


Aast  minutes,)  why  should  not  Philip  Hcnkcl  be  allowed  to 
preach  the  same,  when  he  performed  ordination  ?  If  even  this 
groundless  assertion  were  true,  that  he  had  acted  unlawfully,  yet 
he  would  (agreeably  to  their  argument)  not  have  committed  anv 
wrong,  "as  it  is  sometimes  necessary  and  profitable  to  deviate 
from  rule  or  constitution."  Can  they  plead  this?  why  should 
he  not  be  allowed  to  do  the  same?  Is  it  reasonable  that  he- 
should  be  bound  to  act  lawfully,  and  the  others  have  the  privi- 
lege to  deviate  from  the  rules  or  constitution  when  they  please  ? 
How  can  they  prove  by  the  constitution,  that  if  an  individual 
minister,  when  authorised  by  the  Synod,  performs  ordination, 
that  he  acts  unlawfully  ?  They  cannot,  especially  since  they 
adopted  the  following  resolution,  at  Lincolnton,  (1820,)  thai 
"  It  was  unanimously  resolved,  that,  hereafter,  no  ordination 
for  the  ministry  in  our  church  shall  be  performed,  nor  declared 
to  be  valid,  except  it  is  done  by  at  least  two  ordained  minis- 
ters of  our  church,  and  by  such  who  were  thereto  appointed  by 
the  Synod."  (See  their  minutes,  page  10.)  Now  if  the  con- 
stitution had  before  prohibited  any  individual  minister  from 
performing  the  rite  of  ordination,  what  need  had  they  to 
adopt  a  rule,  that  hereafter  no  ordination  should  be  performed 
except  by  at  least  two  ministers  ?  By  this  they  prove  that  in- 
jdividual  ministers  before  were  never  prohibited  from  perform- 
ing ordination.  Or,  indeed,  is  it  necessary  to  make  two  rules 
exactly  alike  to  answer  one  end  ? 

I  shall  also  prove  by  their  own  concessions,  in  receiving  the 
Rev.  J.  E.  Bell  without  a  re-ordination,  that  they  have  no  just 
reasons  to  say  aught  against  my  ordination.  If  they  received 
Mr.  Bell  as  a  regular  ordained  minister,  then  they  must  have 
recognised  the  transactions  of  the  le^al  Synod  held  on  I  rinity, 
1819,  as  legal:  if  so,  how  could  they  persist  in  their  illegal 
transaction  of  April?  But.  did  they  receive  him  as  an  unlaw- 
ful minister,  then  they  fellowship  a  disorderly  man — they  have 
a  rotten  member  ;  hence,  upon  this  ground,  they  must  be  a 
disorderly  connexion  of  men,  because  they  fellowship  an  un- 
lawful, disorderly  minister.  They  say,  u  it  was  admitted  that 
he  was  ordained,  but  that  his  ordination  was  invalid  according 
to  the  rules  of  all  regular  christian  churches.  His  ordination 
was  unanimously  made  legal,  valid,  and  ratified."  (Last  min- 
utes, see  page  10.)  An  invalid  ordination  is  no  ordination. 
There  can  be  no  ordination  unless  it  be  performed  by  a  propei* 
authority.  Was  his  ordination  not  performed  by  a  proper  au- 
thority, then  he  is  not  ordained  at  all.  How  then  could  they 
make  that  which  was  no  ordination  at  all  a  valid  ordination  i 
But  was  he  ordained  by  a  proper  authority,  how  could  they 
say  that  it  was  invalid'?  >  .Was  it  valid  and  legal,  how  could 


they  ratify  and  make  it  legal  I  Can  a  legal  thing  be  made 
gal?  Was  his  ordination  unlawful,  invalid,  and  wrong,  how 
could  they  make  an  unlawful  thing  lawful,  an  invalid  thing- 
valid,  and  a  wrong  thing  right?  Can  wrong  be  right?  Why 
did  they  not  re-ordain  (or  properly  ordain)  him,  before  they 
received  him  ?  But  perhaps  they  mean,  (and  some  have  said 
it,)  that,  though  Mr.  Bell  was  not  ordained  according  to  the 
rules  of  all  regular  churches,  yet  he  was  ordained  according  to 
the  scriptures,  as  we  have  examples  upon  divine  record  that 
individuals  ordained  others.  What  a  pitiful  subterfuge  !  Is 
it  not  ridiculous  to  think,  that  the  rules  of  regular  christian 
churches  should  be  contrary  to  the  scriptures,  and  that  the 
scriptures  should  allow  of  such  ordinations  which  the  rules  of 
jegular  churches  condemn?  Such  churches  whose  rules  con- 
demn a  scriptural  ordination,  cannot  be  sound  orthodox 
churches  :  they  must  certainly  be  daughters  of  th«  old  harlot 
of  Home!  If  Mr.  Bell's  ordination  be  scriptural,  which  they 
must  admit,  (or  else  admit  that  he.  is  not  ordained  at  all,)  then 
it  certainly  must  be  valid  ;  for  if  a  scriptural  thing  is  not  valid, 
then  there  is  nothing  valid,  flow  then  could  they  make  it 
valid?  or,  indeed,  are  the  holy  scriptures  to  be  made  valid  by 
a.  connexion  of  men  ?  Is  Mr.  Bell  ordained  according  to  the 
scriptures,  so  am  I,  as  we  were  both  ordained  together,  at  one 
time  and  place,  and  by  the  same  person.  («) 

But  upon  the  whole,  if  Mr.  Bell's  and  my  ordination  were 
not  lawful,  then  Philip  Henkel  would  certainly  be  guilty  of  a 
great  misdemeanor  in  his  office,  in  performing  such  an  unlaw- 
ful act.  Now  if  they  had  been  convinced  that  Philip  Henkel 
had  acted  arbitrarily  and  illegally,  why  did  they  not  silence 
him,  or  at  least  bring  him  to  an  account  for  it  ?  But  they  were 
so  far  from  doing  it,  that  they  sent  two  messengers  in  order  to 
make  a  compromise  with  him,  and  receive  him  as  brother. 
What,  offer  a  man  a  compromise  who  is  guilty  of  so  great  a 
misdemeanor  ?    It  would  have  been  in  his  place  to  have  done 

(a)  It  is  spenenJy  said,  thai,  a  regular  ordination  mv.st  cpmc  through  a  pro 
per  channel.  My  ordination  is  derived  through  two  channels  from  Europe. 
The  fjrst  is  through  the  Rev.  Dr.  Frank,  professor  of  theology  in  the  univer- 
sity of  Halle,  in  Saxony;  and  the  other  is  through  the  Rev.  Yelthusen.  Dr. 
Muhlenberg,  Kuntze,  &c.  were  ordained  by  Dr.  Frank'.  These  two,  with  D:r. 
Smith  of  Philadelphia,  ordained  my  reverend  father.  Mr.  YeHhusen  ordained 
she  Rev.  C.  Storck  and  Nussman  ;  Storck  and  my  father  ordained  my  brother, 
(Philip  Henkel,)  and  he  me.  Dr.  Frank  was  born  the  27th  day  of  March,  A . 
D.  165;>.  at  Eubeck,  and  died  at  Halle  in  the  year  1727.  Frank  w  as  the  foiu; 
tier  of  the  orphan-house  at  Halle,  and  many  other  valuable  institutions.  He 
successfulry  prepared  many  perso  »i  for  the  ministry,  and  supplied  many  parte 
af  Europe  with  minister.",,  and  baa  also  £ent  BQnie  to  India,  in  As'.a.  Sc  .-  &: 
.vLamur's  Researches; 


S9 


it.  Or  did  they  wish  to  have  another  unruly  man  in  then- 
Connexion?  (a) 

5.  The  question,  "Who  are,  and  who  compose,  the  regula- 
Lutheran  Synod  of  North-Carolina  and  adjacent  states  ?  and 
who  are,  in  the  eye  of  the  constitution,  unregular?"  briefly 
considered. 

Before  this  can  clearly  be  answered,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
ask,  What  is  a  Synod  ?  A  Synod  is  a  body  of  ministers,  with 
lay  deputies,  who  superintend  the  concerns  of  the  church  under 
their  care,  agreeably  to  certain  christian  rules,  founded  upon  a 
constitution.  But  a  body  of  ministers,  &c.  who  act  without  a 
constitution,  can  be  no  regular  Synod :  they  are  the  builders 
of  Babylon.  Neither  are  a  majority  to  act  contrary  to  the 
constitution;  nor  can  such  decisions  be  made  legal  because  a 
majority  say  so,  as  some  people  vainly  dream.  The  very  in- 
tention of  a  constitution  is,  to  be  a  check  upon  the  majority  ; 
otherwise,  if  the  majority  could  act  as  they  list,  a  constitution 
would  be  useless,'  as  the  majority  would  then  be  the  constitu- 
tion. If  a  majority  act  contrary  to  the  constitution,  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  the  minority  to  coerce  them  to  obedience ;  and  ii 
they  refuse,  they  cease  to  be  of  that  body,  and  the  minority 
only  then  compose  the  body—because  they  had  not  departed 
from  the  constitution,  their  supreme  law,  and  the  truce  to  which 
they  all  agreed. 

The  connexion  I  have  been  describing  have  departed  from 
the  constitution,  v.  men  the  preceding  remarks  undeniably 
evince.  In  short,  their  departure  from  the  constitution,  <kc* 
may  be  comprised  in  the  following  heads :  1.  A  two-fold 
breach  of  the  constitution  in  1819.  First :  meeting  at  an  im- 
proper time,  and  that,  too,  without  letting  some  of  the  minis- 
ters in  Tennessee  know  it,  until  it  was  too  late  for  them  to  at- 
tend ;  and  others  did  not  get  to  know  it  until  their  meeting  was 
over.    Secondly  :  sanctioning  a  plan  which  is  contrary  to  the 

(</)  It  appears  that  the  Rev.  Philip  llenkel  did  compromise  with  them :  hi:* 
he  has  since  declared  himself  as  not  belonging  to  their  connexion-,  nor  do  salt 
of  the  cojng,a'€ gallons  in  Tennessee  own  their  ministers  as  regular  Lutheran 
Now  why  said  Philip  Henfcel  compromised  with  them,  and  afterwards  declarer 
it  void,  he  is  requested  to  inform  the  Lutheran  community  in  an  official  man- 
ner, at  our  meeting-  of  the  next  Synod.  He  has  informed  some  individuals  of 
this  county  by  letters.  Whether  the  compromise  he  made  w'wh  them  was  no! 
fairly  stated  to  him,  or  whether,  at  that  time,  he  had  not  all  the  necessary  in- 
formation with  respect  to  certain  circumstances,  is  left  for  him  to  explain.  It 
v  as,  indeed,  apparently  a  political  step  to  compromise  with  him  :  by  this 
means  they  could  have  divided  us,  and  strengthened  their  cause.  I  mast  yet 
observe,  that  his  compromise  with  them  was  only  in  an  individual  capacity  - 
he  had  no  synodal  authority  for  doing  it :  hence  it  is,  upon  that  ground,  thai, 
it  is  void,  and  of  no  effect ;  especially  as  he  compromised  before  they  recalled 
their  illegal  transactions.  This,  indeed,  showed  his  good  will,  which  is  o&av 
iafcfrcdablc,  b\tt  not  always  soiev  until  justice  be  done  . 


4U 


seventh  article  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession  of  Faith,  viz.  the 
government  of  a  General  Synod.  2.  Their  officers  denying 
the  constitution,  and  the  others  fellowshipping  them,  and  thus 
Conniving  at  their  offence.  3.  Refusing  to  recall  their  former 
illegal  transactions  after  the  constitution  was  acknowledged, 
which  had  been  denied  by  their  officers,  (a)    4.  Denying  the 

(a)  The  reader  is  to  observe,  that  the  constitution  was  denied  on  Monday, 
and  afterwards,  on  the  same  day,  they  left  the  meeting-house,  the  proper  place 
for  holding  the  Synod,  and  went  into  a  house  of  entertainment,  where  they, 
under  officers  who  did  not  own  the  constitution,  transacted  business.  We 
then  concluded,  that,  since  nothing  could  be  legally  transacted  with  them,  we 
would  endeavor  to  meet  in  Tennessee,  where  there  were  some  more  of  the 
connexion  who  had  not  deviated  from  rule.  The  same  day,  late  in  the  even- 
ing, we,  with  several  of  our  deputies,  retired  to  my  dwelling-house,  about  five 
miles  from  Lincolnton.  But  expecting  that  my  worthy  friends,  Messrs.  John 
Abernathy,  Henry  Rudisail,  and  Jacob  Aderhold,  deputies  from  their  several 
congregations,  would  stay  the  next  day  in  Lincolnton,  to  see  how  this  connex- 
ion would  further  proceed,  I  sent  Mr.  Jacob  Flyer,  jun.  deputy  from  Lancas- 
ter, S.  C.  to  them  in  the  morning.  I  sent  a  few  lines  by  him  to  Messrs.  Aber- 
nathy and  Aderhold,  cautioning  them  not  to  take  seats  with  said  connexion, 
whilst  they  continued  in  their  lawless  situation.  But  I  also  authorised  Mr.  Aber- 
nathv,  in  particular,  that  in  case  said  connexion  would  own  the  constitution 
which  was  denied  the  day  before,  and  if  they  were  willing  to  recall  their  for- 
mer illegal  transactions,  and  try  every  thing  anew  by  the  constitution,  he 
should  let  me  know,  and  I  would  attend  again.  Upon  this  same  ground  we 
were  willing  to  act  the  day  before  ;  but  thinking  that  they  might  weigh  the 
case  better  until  the  next  day,  and  to  prevent  a  schism,  I  proposed  this  to 
them  by  my  deputy.  We  cotdd  easily  have  recalled  our  resolution  of  holding" 
a  Synod  in  Tennessee,  had  they  acted  constitutionally.  Messrs.  Abernathy 
and"  Aderhokl  promptly  attended  to  the  directions  [  had  given  them  by  my 
letters.  The  following  is  a  part  of  an  instrument  of  w  riting  written  by  Mr 
Aderhold,  which  fully  explains  the  nature  of  the  case:  "To  the  Lutheran 
community  of  this  and  the  adjacent-. states,  and  all  who  love  the  truth  :  Mr. 
John  Abernathy  made  a  motion,  which  was  seconded  by  myself,  which  was — 
That  whereas  the  session  in  April,  1819,  w  as  contrary  to  the  constitution  ; 
hence  all  transactions  of  that  session,  not  being  of  a  binding  nature,  should  be- 
recalled.  But  this  was  rejected.  Mr.  Abernathy  then  said,  Well,  then,  ac- 
knowledge Mr.  David  HenkePs  ordination,  for  you  have  ratified  Mr.  Beli's, 
which  stands  upon  the  same  ground,  being  performed  at  the  same  time  and 
place,  and  by  the  same  person,  the  Rev.  Philip  Henkel,  agreeably  to  the  con- 
stitution. The  Secretary  then  replied,  There  is  a  great  difference  between 
the  two,  for  there  are  some  charges  against  David  Henkel.  Well,  said  Mr. 
Abernathy,  if  there  are,  then  try  him  according  to  the  constitution,  for  any 
charges  against  him  since  the  last  Synod.  This  request  was  also  rejected  by 
the  officers,  and  did  not  suffer  it  to  be  debated.  The  candid  reader  may  see  that 
justice  was  not  intended  towards  the  minority.  Had  they  acted  impartially, 
they  would  have  taken  up  Mr.  Abernathy's  motion,  or  at  lea'st  taken  the  yeas 
and  nays.  And  had  they  had  any  charges  against  Mr.  David  Henkel  which 
the)7  could  have  proven,  they  would  not  have  refused  to  give  him  a  trial.  But 
they  said  he  was  not  there,  that  they  could  not  try  him.  Mr.  Abernathy  then 
replied,  If  they  would  admit  his  ordination,  which  was  constitutional,  and  thai 
he  had  a  letter,  with  him  from  Mr.  D.  Henkel,  stating,  that  if  they  would  aci 
upon  constitutional  principles,  lie  should  let  him  know,  and  he  would  attend. 
But,  No!  was  the  answer:  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  him.  Vet,  it  appear-, 
that  was  not  so  ;  as  they  afterwards  took  up  more  degrading  o^iestions  again^ 
him,  and  in  their  minutes  censure  him  as  having  behaved  with  conspicuous 
incivility  on  Monday  before.    But  tlie  President  stud.  Scercta'y  denying  •% 


41 


doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  church,  with  respect  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  {jQ^To  this  also  may  be  added,  that  one  of  their 
officers  at  the  meeting  in  April,  1819,  declared  that  he  could 
not  believe  what  was  read  there,  viz.  u  that  the  manhood  of 
Christ  was  taken  up  (not  changed)  into  his  Godhead;  that, 
therefore,  he  possessed  all  divine  perfections"  But  when  an 
appeal  was  made  to  the  Bible  for  proof,  he  said,  u  If  five  hun- 
dred bibles  would  say  so,  I  do  not  believe  it ! !"  I  never  have 
learnt  that  he  was  publicly  nor  privately  censured  by  his  as- 
sociates, although  several  of  them  well  knew  it.  The  officer 
who  spoke  in  this  manner  was  not  the  Secretary,  but  their 
President. 

Whereas  this  connexion  would  not  act  constitutionally,  and 
all  the  other  ministers  present,  who  were  not  criminal  in  the 
same  degree,  associated  with  them  ;  it  was  out  of  the  question 
with  us  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with  them  whilst  they  con- 
tinued lawless.  We  three,  therefore,  and  deputies,  having 
the  constitution  on  our  side,  had  to  act  the  best  for  ourselves 
and  those  under  our  care.  We  had  legal  authority  to  alter  or 
amend  the  constitution,  if  two-thirds  of  us  agreed,  being  a 
regular  body,  assembled  at  a  proper  time  and  place,  for  the 
purpose  of  holding  a  Synod.  Allowing  one  deputy-vote  for 
one  minister,  there  were  six  votes  in  all ;  now  had  four  out  of 
six  agreed  to  alter  and  amend  the  constitution,  it  would  have 
been  legal ;  but  we  generally  agreed  to  do  so. 

The  following  is  a  statement  of  the  regular  synodal  transac- 
tions for  the  year  1820,  by  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of 
North-Carolina  and  adjacent  states  : 


known  truth,  (I  mean  that  we  had  a  ratified  constitution,)  in  the  face  of  the 
whole  audience,  which,  with  their  unconstitutional  transactions  in  1819,  and 
departing  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  was  the  cause  of  all  the  confusion  that 
took  place  on  Monday.  For  which  conduct,  Mr.  David  Henkel,  with  his  father 
and  brother,  upbraided  them.  Now  reader,  which  do  you  think  is  most  con- 
spicuously uncivil,  the  denying-  of  a  known  truth,  to  the  mortification  of  others, 
by  the  heads  of  a  Synod  professing  the  holy  religion  of  Christ,  or  else  upbraid- 
ing them  for  their  conduct,  and  appealing  for  a  fair  investigation  of  his  own 
and  his  opponents'  conduct  ?  This  may  suffice  for  an  illiterate  man,  such  as 
I  am.  JACOB  ADERHOLD. 

"February  12th,  1821." 
It  was  not  my  intention  only  to  be  tried  legally,  but  also  to  try  them  upon 
the  same  principle.  Now  why  did  they  not  accept  the  proposal,  which  my 
deputies  made,  to  try  me  constitutionally  ?  This  is  sufficient  to  show,  that  I 
did  not  retire  home  on  Monday  evening  with  a  view  to  be  screened  from  a 
legal  trial,  otherwise  I  certainly  would  not  have  challenged  them  the  very  next 
day,  through  my  deputies,  to  try  me,  and  be  tried  by  the  constitution.  What 
signified  their  owning  a  denied  constitution,  when  they  would  not  try  others 
and  be  tried  by  it  ?  Had  they  accepted  the  proposal,  and  tried  me,  and  could 
they  have  found  me  legally  guilty  of  my  supposed  crimes,  the  sentence  of  ex- 
communication would  have  had  some  weight  with  men  of  sense-,  but  so  it 
bursted  in  the  air, 

6 


6S  It  was  resolved,  that  whereas  the  most  of  the  ministers 
wh  live  in  this  and  some  of  the  adjacent  states,  who  were 
ttvnbers  of  this  Synod,  had  departed  from  the  constitution, 
&x\  and  even  their  officers-denying  it,  so  that  they  must  needs 
o  nse  to  be  regular  members ;  that  the  Synod  now  begun 
should  finish  their  transactions  on  the  17th  and  following  days 
of  July  next,  in  one  of  the  churches  in  Greene  county,  Ten- 
nessee ;  and  then  and  there,  with  the  advice  of  Mr.  Zink, 
and  Adam  Miller,  who  reside  in  that  state,  Co  make  such  al- 
ter tions  and  amendments  as  should  be  deemed  necessary  in 
the  new  local  situation  of  the  Synod." 

According  to  this  agreement,  the  Rev.  Philip  Henkel,  who 
h*id  been  the  President  of  the  preceding  Synod,  appointed  the 
Sy  nod  to  assemble  in  Solomon's  Church,  Cove  Creek,  Greene 
couaty,  Tennessee,  on  the  aforesaid  time.  Agreeably  to  ap- 
pointment, the  following  ministers  met :  The  Rev.  Jacob 
Zink,  from  Washington  county,  Virginia  ;  Paul  Henkel,  from 
New  Market,  Virginia  j  Adam  Miller,  from  Sullivan  county, 
Tennessee  ;  Philip  Henkel  and  George  Esterly,  from  Greene 
county,  1  ennessee.  David  Henkel,  residing  in  Lincoln  coun- 
ty, N.  C.  belonging  to  this  Synod,  could  not  be  present. 

Qjf°  The  Rev.  Lewis  Markert,  who  always  had  been  a  reg- 
ular member  of  the  Synod,  lives  now  in  the  state  of  Indiana. 
He  was  not  present  at  two  or  three  Synods,  (or  perhaps  more,) 
which  is,  no  doubt,  owing  to  the  great  distance  from  the  pla- 
ces of  meeting.  He  has  not  taken  any  part  (to  the  best  of  our 
knowledge)  with  the  illegal  connexion,  nor  have  they  registered 
his  name  with  theirs  in  their  minutes  j  hence  he  is  still  a  mem- 
ber of  the  regular  Synod. 

Besides  the  aforesaid  ministers,  there  were  also  nineteen 
deputies  from  nine  congregations,  who  met.  The  Synod  con- 
tinued their  session  from  the  17th  to  the  19th  of  July.  Their 
principal  transactions,  alterations,  &c.  are  as  follows : 

1.  It  was  resolved,  that  the  Rev.  Jacob  Zink  and  Adam, 
Miller,  (who  for  a  goodly  number  of  years  had  been  candi- 
dates,) should  be  ordained  Pastors,  (or  Bishops,)  which  was 
also  done  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  prayer. 

2.  Resolved,  that  Mr.  George  Esterly  should  be  ordained 
to  the  office  of  Deacon,  in  the  congregation  at  the  Golden 
Sp:ing,  Greene  county,  Tennessee,  on  the  ensuing  Friday, 
vvir  h  was  also  done. 

-  Upon  the  petition  of  many  of  our  members  residing  in 
Ci  Girardeau,  Missouri,  by  Messrs.  George  Clemmer  and 
J<  h  Smith,  it  was  Resolved,  that  the  Rev.  Jacob  Zink  should 
i?isit  hem. 

Rides  and  Alterations.    1.  It  was  deemed  expedient,  that 


■Mr 


the  transactions  of  this  Synod  should  be  in  the  German  lan- 
guage 5*  and  the  reports  thereof  should  also  be  published  in  it.. 

2.  All  doctrines  taught  by  us,  both  with  respect  to 
faith  and  conduct,  and  all  books  for  public  use  in  the  church9 
shall  be  in  conformity  to  the  holy  Scriptures  and  the  Augs- 
burgh  Confession  of  Faith,  as  near  as  possible.  Luther's 
smaller  catechism  shall  be  the  standard  catechism  of  our 
church  ;  agreeably  to  which  our  youth,  and  others 'who  may 
need  it,  shall  be  instructed;  The  Christian  Catechism,  prin- 
ted at  New-Market,  Shenandoah  county,  Va.  may  also  be 
Used  in  the  explanation  thereof. 

3.  No  one  can  become  a  minister,  or  any  other  officer  of  our 
church,  unless  he  be  first  received  as  a  regular  member  by 
the  congregation,  according  to  the  order  of  the  church,  and 
leads  a  christian  life.  All  such  as  desire  to  become  ministers, 
must  solemnly  promise  to  teach  agreeably  to  the  word  of  God, 
and  the  Augsburgh  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  doctrine  of 
our  church.    Neither  can  it  be  suffered,  that  any  minister  of 

*  The  reason  of  this  is,  because  there  is  no  minister  belonging  to  this  Synod 
who  is  not  a  master  of  the  German  tongue,  and  there  are  some  who  under- 
stand the  English  very  imperfectly.  But  this  article  is  not  to  be  understood 
that  our  English  brethren  are  to  be  neglected,  or  any  of  their  privileges  cur- 
tailed :  deputies  sent  from  English  congregations  are  not  to  lose  their  votes, 
because  they  do  not  understand  the  German  tongue.  It  will  be  an  easy  mat- 
ter to  interpret  every  motion  made  to  them.  Neither  does  the  article  say 
that  no  English  should  be  spoken  at  all  in  the  Synod,  but  simply  that  the  trans- 
actions should  be  in  German,  which  does  not  exclude  the  English.  Nor  are 
they  prohibited  from  haying  the  reports  of  the  Synod  printed  in  English,  of 
which  this  is  a  specimen .  Provision  may  always  be  made  hereafter,  in  this  case, 
if  English  ministers  wish  to  associate  with  us.  The  reason  why  we  wish  to 
preserve  the  knowledge  of  the  German  language  is  not  because  we  are  too 
selfish  to  patronize  another  tongue — all  such  as  are  acquainted  with  us  know 
it — but  because  the  most  of  our  theological  books  are  written  in  the  German, 
which  contain  our  doctrines.  Luther  was  a  German,  and  the  most  of  his  works 
are  only  extant  in  that  language.  They  never  were  translated  into  the  En- 
glish tongue ;  and  if  they  were  to  be,  they  would  lose  much  of  their  original 
beauty,  which  is  the  case  in  the  most  of  translations.  If  the  knowledge  of  the 
German  language  be  lost,  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  our  church  will  also  be 
forgotten,  in  another  generation,  provided  there  be  no  accurate  translations. 
There  are  many  of  our  English  brothers  and  sisters  who  owe  their  knowledge 
of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  to  German  authors.  They  rejoice  that  they  do  know 
it,  and  it  has  proved  a  great  consolation  to  them  in  many  of  their  mental  dis- 
t'vsses.  Hadth  re  been  no  person  who  understood  the  German  tongue  to  ex- 
plain it  to  them  in  English,  they  would  still  be  destitute  of  the  valuable  com- 
forts they  confess  ttiat  they  enjoy  :  hence  it  will  be  an  interest  to  them  and 
their  children  if  the  German  tongue  be  preserved,  so  long,  at  least,  until  those 
valuable  authors  can  be  translated.  Unbiassed,  liberal  minds  among  my  English 
brethren,  concur  with  me  in  tins  sentiment,  and  would  freely  learn  the  Ger- 
man, if  they  were  not  too  far  advanced  in  life,  and  had  the  means  ;  and  they 
justly  explode  those  young  Germans  who  have  German-speaking  parents,  and 
do  not  learn  their  mother  tongue,  in  consequence  of  a  false  modesty ;  and  feel 
ashamed  to  spring  from  a  nation  of  people  who  were  known  before  the  birth 
of  our  Saviour,  and  has  produced  the  greatest  men  of  valor  and  of  sctencp. 


44 


oar  Synod  should  be  connected  with  the  General  Synod,  if  it 
should  ever  be  established  as  it  has  been  proposed. 

4.  No  one  can  be  a  member  of  our  church,  unless  he  or  she 
has  been  baptized  according  to  the  command  of  our  Saviour, 
and  confirmed  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  commune. 

5.  The  grades  of  our  ministry  are  only  two — Pastor  and 
Deacon.  A  pastor  may  exercise  all  ministerial  functions ;  he 
has  general  authority.  He  must  be  ordained  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands  and  prayer,  by  one  or  more  other  pastors.  A  deacon 
does  not  possess  the  same  authority  ;  he  is  only  to  catechise, 
read  sermons,  admonish,  and,  in  the  absence  of  the  pastor,  if 
requested,  to  baptize  children.  He  must  be  examined  by  the 
Synod,  at  the  request  of  the  church  council,  with  respct  to  his 
qualifications ;  and  if  he  be  found  qualified,  he  is  to  be  conse- 
crated by  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  prayer,  by  one  or  more 
pastors,  either  in  the  Synod,  or  else  in  the  congregation  whom 
he  is  to  serve.  But  if  a  deacon  acquires  the  necessary  quali- 
fications for  the  office  of  a  pastor,  and  he  receives  a  regular 
call  from  one  or  more  vacant  congregations,  he  may  be  or- 
dained thereto. 

6.  At  every  Synod,  certain  pastors  shall  be  nominated  and 
appointed  for  the  purpose  of  performing  ordinations,  and  to 
subscribe  the  credentials  attested  with  their  seals,  and  to  keep 
good  order.  They  shall  also  subscribe  their  names  to  the 
other  transactions  of  the  Synod,  and  if  it  be  requested  for  cer- 
tain reasons,  all  the  other  pastors  and  deputies  may  do  the 
same.  If  it  be  deemed  necessary  by  the  Synod,  one  of  the 
pastors  may  be  appointed  to  act  as  a  president,  to  read,  to 
make  proposals,  he  ;  and  another  one  may  also  serve  as  Sec- 
retary. But  it  is  not  to  be  understood,  that  such  are  to  act  in 
this  manner  during  the  whole  session  :  others  may  be  appoin- 
ted to  change  places,  just  so  as  the  circumstances  may  require  it. 

7.  It  was  resolved,  that  annually  there  shall  be  a  Synod 
held,  commencing  on  the  third  Sunday  in  October,  in  the  state 
of  Tennessee,  or  in  the  western  parts  of  Virginia,  at  such 
place  as  the  majority  of  ministers  and  deputies  shall  appoint. 
But  should  it  be  deemed  necessary  that  the  Synod  should  be 
held  in  any  of  the  adjoining  states,  it  may  be  allowed  ;  yet  it 
shall  always  (for  the  future)  be  called  "  Tennessee  Synod" 

8.  The  Synod  is  to  consist  of  ministers  and  deputies,  as  usual. 

9.  Every  congregation  is  to  keep  a  treasury  for  itself,  sup- 
ported by  free  donations,  for  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  ex- 
penses of  the  printing  of  the  minutes  of  the  Synod,  of  mis- 
sionaries, and  other  contingent  expenses  of  the  congregation. 
The  manner  of  supporting  the  treasury,  and  of  expending  the 
money,  shall  be  left  to  the  church  council  and  minister.  But 


45 


at  every  Synod  the  church  council  shall  give  an  account  of  the 
moneys  they  received,  &c.  A  treasury  for  the  Synod,  at  this 
time,  is  not  deemed  necessary. 

10.  Every  minister  is  to  keep  a  register  of  the  number  he 
baptizes,  confirms,  &c.  as  usual. 

11.  No  minister  of  our  Synod  shall  be  allowed  to  take  a 
seat  and  vote  with  the  connexion  (zvho  call  themselves  the  Sy- 
nod") of  ministers  in  North-Carolina,  until  we  are  convinced 
that  they  are  united  with  us,  in  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  the 
Lutheran  church. 

12.  It  was  deemed  expedient  that  these  resolutions  should 
remain  as  they  are  stated,  and  all  transactions  to  be  in  con- 
formity to  them  ;  yet  should  it,  at  any  future  Synod,  be  con- 
sidered necessary  to  make  amendments,  it  may  be  done  by  a 
majority  of  votes — but  not  so  as  to  alter  the  intention  of  the 
above. 

13.  It  appeared  to  be  the  wish  of  all  present,  that,  annually, 
one  of  the  senior  ministers  should  visit  all  the  congregations 
of  our  connexion,  and  to  examine  into  their  situation,  to  edify 
young  ministers  with  salutary  instructions  and  admonitions. 
All  that  were  present  declared  themselves  willing  to  make 
some  preparations  that  it  might  be  done. 

14.  The  next  Synod  is  to  be  held  in  Sullivan  county,  Ten- 
nessee, in  one  of  the  Rev.  Adam  Miller's  congregations,  com- 
mencing on  the  third  Sunday  in  October,  1821.  The  name  of 
the  church  and  place  where  it  shall  be,  shall  be  published  be- 
fore that  time. 

15.  It  was  also  resolved,  that  the  objections  which  some  of 
the  ministers  <§f  the  state  of  Ohio  alleged  against  the  plan- 
proposals  for  a  General  Synod,  should  be  printed  with  the 
minutes.  [{Q^The  Oration  which  the  reader  may  find  in  the 
commencement  of  this  little  work,  supplies  the  place  of  the  ob- 
jections the  Ohio  ministers  alleged.  They  contain  no  other 
arguments.  The  oration  was  nearly  finished,  before  J  got  to 
see  them.. ..author.] 

16.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  Synod,  the  Rev.  Jacob  Zink 
preached  a  lengthy  and  most  excellent  sermon,  from  the  sec- 
ond epistle  of  St.  John,  v.  9,  10,  and  11. 

The  Rev.  Andrew  Henkel,  living  in  the  state  of  Ohio,  being 
a  member  of  this  Synod,  does  not  attend  in  consequence  of  the 
great  distance.  He  is  now  also  a  member  of  the  Synod  of 
Ohio,  and  my  father  likewise.  In  this  way  we  are  connected 
with  that  venerable  body,  consisting,  by  this  time,  upwards  of 
30  or  40  ministers  ;  however,  their  exact  number  I  do  not 
know,  as  I  have  not  seen  their  latest  minutes.  My  father, 
also,  is  now  37  or  38  years  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  Perm- 


46 


sylvania.  In  this  view,  we  are  also  connected  with  that  Sy- 
nod. But  whether  he  will  continue  to  be  a  member  of  that 
venerable  body,  will  aepend  upon  this,  whether  they  will  per- 
sist  in  adopting  the  plan  for  a  General  Synod  which  they  pro- 
posed ;  or,  in  other  words,  whether  they  continue  to  be  a  reg- 
ular Lutheran  Synod.  I  have  charity  to  believe,  that  there 
is  a  goodly  number  among  them  who  will  not  depart  from 
sound  doctrine  and  the  Lutheran  church  discipline.  In  this 
place  it  may  not  be  improper  to  make  an  observation,  which 
was  forgotten  to  be  made  in  my  oration,  viz  :  Individual  Sy- 
r.ods  being  established  for  the  preservation  of  good  discipline  ; 
but  should  any  treat  an  individual  unjustly,  through  partiality 
and  envy,  he  then  could  have  an  opportunity  to  attach  himself 
to  another  Synod.  But  should  he  be  justly  excommunicated 
for  crimes  sufficiently  testified,  no  other  honest  Synod  would 
dare  to  receive  him.  Thus  there  is  an  opportunity  for  the  in- 
nocent to  find  redress,  and  the  guilty  to  be  discountenanced. 
But  if  the  General  Synod  should  excommunicate  a  minister 
unjustly,  where  then  shall  he  find  redress  t  Such  a  one,  not 
willing  to  suffer  unjustly,  raises  a  new  sect  of  his  own  :  hence 
this  is  the  very  reason  why  there  haye  been  so  many  schisms 
among  such  denominations  as  are  governed  by  general  Synods, 
But  when  all  denominations  are  to  form  a  National  Synod, 
such  individuals  as  were  unjustly  excommunicated  would  have 
but  a  slender  opportunity  to  establish  parties  ;  and  if  they  did, 
the  national  church,  like  that  of  Rome,  might  persecute  them 
an  a  very  feeling  manner.    Then  farewell  liberty,  forever  ! 

6.  The  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  church  with  respect  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  (sometimes  called  the  holy  Eucharist,)  briefly 
vindicated  against  several  cavils  and  misrepresentations. 

Whereas,  the  doctrine  of  our  church,  with  respect  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  is  much  disputed,  and  assailed  in  various  ways  ; 
and  some  of  our  brethren  being  much  perplexed  in  conse- 
quence thereof ;  and  as  I,  also,  lately  have  been  the  same  as 
challenged  to  defend  it,  I  shall  not  stop  to  lay  my  arguments 
before  the  public.  But  I  shall  not  think  of  ridiculing  others 
in  an  unbecoming  manner,  who  differ  from  me  in  sentiments, 

Statement  of  the  Controversy — (Status  Controversial.) 

Before  I  proceed,  it  will  be  necessary  to  let  the  reader  know 
more  particularly  wherein  the  controversy  consists.  The 
question  in  dispute  is,  "  Whether  the  real  body  of  Christ,  which 
was  crucified,  and  his  real  blood,  are  present  in  the  Lord's 
supper,  ancj  administered,  not  only  to  believers,  but  also  to  un- 
believers ?"  The  opponents  to  the  Lutherans  say  no — but  we 
say  yes.  There  are  two  classes  of  opponents,  expressing  them 


47 


selves  differently,  yet  their  sentiments  upon  the  whole  are 
nearly  alike.  The.  first  declare,  that  they  do  not  believe  the 
presence  of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  in  the  holy  Eucharist, 
but  that  bread  and  wine  are  representations  or  emblems  oi 
Christ's  broken  body  and  shed  blood,  and  memorials  of  his 
sufferings  and  death  :  that  the  words,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body ;  drink,  this  is  my  blood" — are  not  to  be  understood  in 
a  literal  sense,  but  figuratively,  viz  :  Take,  eat,  these  are  em  - 
blems of  my  body  and  blood.  The  second  admit  that  the  true 
believer  may  eat  and  drink  Christ's  body  and  blood  spiritually 
by  faith,  or  all  the  benefits  of  his  death  and  passion.  Hence 
they  do  not  believe  the  real  presence  of  his  body,  &c.  upon 
earth,  but  that  their  faith  is  awakened  by  the  external  elements, 
the  same  as  by  the  word  of  God  when  it  is  preached,  ascend- 
ing with  their  mind  to  heaven,  and  there  eat  and  drink  his 
body  and  blood  byefaith,  the  same  as  they  eat  and  drink  bread 
and  wine  with  their  mouths. 

The  words  of  institution,  examined  in  what  sense  they  are 
to  be  taken,  and  illustrated  by  those  of  St.  Paul,  I.  Cor.  c.  10, 
v.  15,  16.  We  would  know  nothing  of  this  institution,  had  it 
not  been  revealed  to  us  by  Christ.  The  light  of  nature  could 
not  have  revealed  it.  This  is  not  an  institution  of  some  pro- 
phet, nor  of  an  angel,  but  of  the  Son  of  God :  it  is  a  divine 
mystery.  And  as  none  could  reveal  it  but  Christ,  so  no  one 
can  with  propriety  argue  from  any  other  source  upon  the  sub- 
ject, but  alone  from  the  words  he  spake,  and  such  as  have 
been  spoken  by  his  inspired  servants.  In  the  night  in  which 
he  was  betrayed  he  instituted  it,  with  the  following  words,  viz- 
"  And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it,  and 
brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat%  this  is 
my  body  :  And  he  took  the  cap,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to 
them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  Netv 
Testament,  -which  is  shed  for  mdny,for  the  remission  of  sins?* 
St.  Matthew,  c.  26,  v.  26,  27,  28.  See  St.  Mark,  c.  14,  v.  22, 
24.  St.  Luke,  c.  22,  v.  19,  20,  saith  the  same  words,  only 
with  the  addition,  u  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  These 
words  appear  very  plain  in  themselves  ;  and  if  they  were  not 
differently  construed  from  what  they  are  expressed,  no  person 
that  believed  the  scriptures  could  ever  thought  of  denying  that 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  were  present  and  admin- 
istered in  the  supper.  But  no  doubt,  because  it  appeared  un- 
reasonable to  some,  or  rather  far  beyond  reason,  to  admit  that 
a  body  could  be  omnipresent,  they  sought  a  method  of  ex- 
plaining these  words,  so  that  they  might  comprehend  this  holy 
mystery  with  reason :  hence  they  proposed  that  these  words 
should  be  understood  figuratively,  viz  :  "  Take,  eat,  this  bread 


4S 


signifies  or  represents  my  body,  &c.  or  an  emblem  of  my  body, 
&c."  Several  seeming  reasons  are  advanced  to  justify  this 
explanation.  It  is  said  that  it  is  a  very  customary  thing  for 
the  inspired  penmen  to  speak  in  a  figurative  manner*  ;  that  is 
to  say,  the  literal  meaning  of  a  word  is  frequently  lost;  and 
that  the  same  word  is  employed  to  signify  another — for  in- 
stance, at  the  institution  of  circumcision  and  the  passover :  of 
circumcision  ir  was  said  by  the  Lord,  u  This  is  my  covenant" 
— Gen.  17,  v.  10;  that  is,  it  signifies  my  covenant;  as  the 
cutting  of  the  foreskin  was  not  the  covenant  itself,  hence  it  onlv 
could  signify  it,  although  it  be  called  the  Lord's  covenant :  and 
of  the  passover  it  is  said,  "  It  is  the  Lord^s  passover" — Exod. 
12,  i  t.  Now  the  paschal  lamb  which  the  Israelites  did  eat  in 
the  passover,  was  not  the  passover  itself,  though  it  be  called 
so;  hence  it  only  signifies  it.  Thus  some  conclude,  that  the 
words  of  the  institution,  "Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,"  &c» 
ought  to  be  explained  in  the  same  manner,  i.  e.  figuratively, 
"it  signifies  my  body,"  &c. 

This  is  the  argument  of  some  of  our  opponents,  to  prove 
that  the  words  of  the  institution  ought  to  be  understood  figu- 
ratively, and  that  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  are  not  present, 
I  do  by  no  means  deny  but  what  there  are  many  figurative 
expressions  in  the  bible,  as  well  as  in  other  books,  which  all, 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  rules  of  rhetorick,  will  readily 
admit.  But  what  then,  if  there  be  ?  Will  this  prove  that,  be- 
cause there  are  some  metaphorical  expressions  in  the  bible, 
that  therefore  the  words  of  our  Saviour  in  the  institution  of  the 
holy  Fucharist  must  also  be  such?  An  odd  conclusion!  As 
if  a  man  would  say,  there  are  some  rocks  in  his  field,  that, 
therefore,  there  must  also  be  rocks  in  his  garden.    But  even 

"  *  We  do  not  deny  the  use  of  tropes,  or  of  figurative  language,  and  even  ad- 
mit that  such  might  have  been  used  in  the  words  of  institution ;  but  such  met- 
aphors, &c.  as  are  designed  to  destroy  the  real  benefit  of  this  sacrament,  could 
not  have  been  employed  by  our  Saviour.  Let  us  suppose  a  certain  landlord 
were  to  invite  a  certain  number  of  people  to  dine  with  him,  he  would  set  be- 
fore them  a  number  of  empty  dishes,  and  say,  here,  eat,  these  are  good  vict- 
uals. This,  indeed,  would  be  a  metaphor;  and  the  literal  meaning  would  be. 
*'  These  dishes  are  only  to  represent  victuals."  Would  such  a  landlord  not 
render  himself  ridiculous  in  the  sight  of  his  guests  ?  But  should  he  set  the 
dishes  filled  with  good  victuals  before  them,  and  say,  pointing  to  the  dishes, 
"here,  eat,  these  are  good  victuals,"  he  would  also  use  a  metaphor,  in  calling 
the  dishes  victuals,  (as  dishes  are  no  victuals :)  but  how  widely  different  from 
the  first !  Our  Saviour  could  not  say,  Take,  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this 
wine,  and  call  them  his  body  and  blood,  when  he  only  gave  these  elements' 
unconnected  with  any  thing  else.  This,  indeed,  would  have  been  a  metaphor, 
and  such  a  one,  too,  like  the  one  described,  the  landlord  calling  his  empt\ 
dishes  victuals.  How  much  more  becoming  is  it  to  the  dignity  and  goodness 
of  our  Lord,  to  suppose  that  he  would  have  employed  such  a  metaphor  as 
would  import  the  gift  of  something  which  his  communicants  never  had  before  . 
hence  not  mere  empty  bread  *nd  wine,  or.  emblems  unconnected! 


4-9 


admitting  the  words  of  the  institution  to  be  figurative,  in  tlie 
same  way  as  those  of  circumcision  and  the  passover,  will  it 
then  prove  that  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  are  not  really  ad- 
ministered in  the  Eucharist  ?  There  is,  indeed,  it  might  be 
confessed,  some  propriety  in  comparing  the  manner  of  institu- 
tion of  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  with  those  of 
the  old,  as  those  of  the  new  are  in  lieu  of  them ;  and  upon 
this  ground,  our  opponents  have  room  to  advance  all  the  argu- 
ments they  can  from  the  institutions  of  circumcision  and  the 
passover.  But  I  must  reply,  that  the  external  act  of  circum- 
cision was  not  an  emblem  of  God's  covenant,  but  an  effectual 
seal  thereof,  or  a  sign  under  which  his  covenant  was  actually 
concealed ;  hence  it  was  intimately  connected  with  the  exter- 
nal act  of  cutting  the  foreskin  ;  as  it  is  said,  Rom.  c.  4,  v.  11, 
"  And  he  [Abraham]  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of 
the  righteoiis?iess*  of  the  faith  which  he.  had"  &c.  Circumcis- 
ion is  here  called  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  hence  not 
an  emblem  of  righteousness.  What  righteousness  was  it  that 
was  sealed  to  Abraham  ?  That  which  he  apprehended  by  faith 
in  the  covenant,  sealed  by  circumcision.  It  is  an  evident  case, 
that  every  seal  must  be  connected  with  the  thing  it  is  to  seal. 
If  a  letter  be  sealed,  or  any  other  instrument  of  writing,  the 
seal  must  be  impressed,  and  is  not  separated  from  the  thing  it 
is  to  seal:  a  seal,  therefore,  cannot  be  unconnected.  I  have 
proved  that  the  Apostle  calls  circumcision  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness which  Abraham  obtained  by  faith  through  the  cove- 
nant ;  and  as  a  seal  is  always  connected  with  the  thing  it  is  to 
seal,  therefore  circumcision  was  intimately  connected  with 
God's  covenant ;  hence  it  is  called  his  covenant.  Now  if  the 
words,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body  ;  drink,  this  is  my  blood," 
are  to  be  explained  in  the  same  manner  as  the  words  of  the 
institution  of  circumcision,  then  certainly  it  must  be  wrong  to 
say,  This  bread  represents  my  body,  &c.  but,  This  bread  is  a 
seal  of  my  body,  &c.  by  which  it  is  sealed  to  the  communicant 
the  same  as  circumcision  sealed  the  covenant.  A  seal  being 
inseparably  connected  with  the  thing  it  seals,  hence  bread,  &c. 
must  be  connected  with  Christ's  body,  &c.  because  it  seals  it : 

*  If  circumcision,  which  was  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  was  called  a  sea!, 
how  much  more  do  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  deserve  to  be  called 
divine  seals.  A  seal  is  generally  put  to  some  instrument  of  writing1  of  great 
importance,  and  guarantees  the  stipulations  made  therein.  A  divine  seal,  (or 
a  sacrament,)  does  not  only  seal  God's  grace  to  the  recipient,  but  also  renews 
and  strengthens  the  heart  within  ;  which  is  evident  from  II.  Cor.  1,  21,  22—- 
"  Now  he  which  stablisheth  us  with  you  in  Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us,  is 
God;  who  hath  also  sealed  us,  and  given  the  earnest  of  the  spirit  in  our  hearts." 
Hence,  to  seal  is  the  same  as  to  s.tablish,  anoint,  or  to  bestow  his  spirit  more 
abundantly. 


50 


and,  therefore,  upon  tliis  ground,  the  Lord's  body  and  blood 
must  really  be  present  in  the  holy  Eucharist. 

With  respect  to  the  second  instance,  u  It  is  the  Lord's  pass- 
over,"  it  is  similar  to  that  of  circumcision.    The  eating  of  the 
paschal  lamb  did  not  only  signify  the  passover,  but  it  actually 
was  that  which  effected  the  passover,  it  being  a  mean  to  pre- 
vent the  first  born  of  the  Israelites  from  being  slain,  as  were 
those  of  the  Egyptians.    See  Exod.  c.  12,  v.  12,  13.  Hence, 
when  it  was  a  mean  to  effect  so  great  a  blessing,  then  it  could 
not  be  a  mere  emblem  ;  therefore  neither  can  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, because  it  is  admitted  that  it  is  to  be  explained  in  the 
same  manner.    There  are  many  more  expressions  in  the  bible 
similar  to  these,  not  to  be  taken  literally,  that  if  we  explain 
the  words  of  the  sacrament  accordingly,  it  will  amount  to  the 
very  same — that  bread  is  connected  with  the  Lord's  body,  and 
the  cup  with  his  blood.    For  instance,  "  The  spirit  of  God 
descending  like  a  dove"  Math.  3,  16,  which  was  seen  at  Jordan* 
With  bodily  eyes  the  holy  spirit  cannot  be  seen  ;  neither  was 
the  form  of  a  dove  the  holy  spirit  himself— because  God,  as 
God,  has  no  shape,  and  is  to  be  likened  to  neither  a  dove  aor 
any  thing  else.    This  plainly  shows,  that  this  passage  is  not 
literal.     But  is  it  either  rational  or  scriptural   to  suppose  that 
this  was  a  mere  emblem  of  the  holy  spirit  which  came  upon 
our  Saviour?    Could  a  mere  emblem,  unconnected  with  any 
thing  else,  "  anoint  our  Saviour  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above 
his  fellows  ?"  Heb.  1,  9.  No.  Hence  the  holy  spirit  must  have 
been  connected  with  the  form  of  a  dove  ;  whereby  he  revealed 
himself,  in  like  manner  as  God  did  in  former  times  in  a  burn- 
ing bush  to  Moses,  and  to  Israel  in  a  cloud  by  day  and  in  a 
pillar  of  fire  by  night.    u  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God!"  John,  c. 
1,  v.  29.    The  body,  &c.  of  Christ,  could  only  be  beheld, 
which  is  called  a  lamb,  because  it  was  to  be  slain  as  a  sacrifice, 
the  same  as  lambs  were  under  the  law.    But  had  Christ  a  body, 
or  a  human  nature  only?  No  ;  he  also  is  God.    His  Godhead 
is  intimately  connected  with  his  manhood  ;  for  11  the  word  zvas 
made  flesh"  v.  14;  hence,  u  behold  the  lamb  of  God,"  implies 
the  whole  Saviour,  God-man.    Notwithstanding  this  expres- 
sion not  being  literal,  yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  it 
meant  that  Christ's  manhood  was  only  a  token  or  an  emblem 
of  the  lamb  of  God !  !    This  would  make  our  Saviour  a  mere 
effigy,  which  would  bera  blasphemous  conclusion.    Now  ad- 
mitting the  argument  of  my  opponents,  (upon  which  they  lay 
their  greatest  stress,)  that  the  words  of  the  sacrament  should 
be  taken  figuratively,  even  agreeably  to  the  instances  of  figura- 
tive expressions  which  have  been  produced,  I  have  proved 


that  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  must  be  connected  with  feh« 
elements. 

That  the  words  of  th£  institution  imply  that  the  Lord's  body 
and  blood  are  connected  with  the  elements,  is  confirmed  the 
more  when  the  words  of  St.  Pault  I.  Cor.  10,  v.  15,  16,  are 
investigated.  He  sftith,  u  /  speak  as  to  wise  men  ;  judge  ye 
what  I  say.  Tlie  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  blood  oj  Christ  ?  [lie  bread  which  we  break% 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  What  does 

the  word  communion  signify  ?  Answer :  A  fellowship,  or  a 
union  of  two  or  more  things.  What  has  communion  or  fel- 
lowship with  the  Lord's  body  and  blood?  Some,  no  doubt, 
would  be  ready  to  say,  the  true  believer.  I  do  not  deny  but 
what  he  has  ;  but  the  communion  of  which  the  apostle  speaks 
in  the  words  quoted  here,  is  not  betwixt  Christ  and  the  be- 
liever, but  between  bread  and  his  body,  and  the  cup  and  his 
blood.  It  is  said,  u  The  cup#which  we  bless,  not  the  believer 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ? 
The  bread  which  we  break,  not  the  believer  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?"  But  perhaps 
my  opponents  wish  to  have  these  words  to  read,  a  The  cup  is 
a  token  or  an  emblem  of  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,"  &c.  But  why  must  a  word  be  added  of  men's  own 
invention  ?  The  term  u  token,"  or  u  emblem,"  does  not  once 
occur  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  description  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  If  it  be  allowed  to  add  words  which  are  neither  in 
the  text  nor  context,  then  it  would  be  an  easy  thing  to  pervert 
the  plainest  evidence.  I  might,  with  equal  propriety,  explain 
(or  rather  pervert)  I.  John,  c.  J,  v.  20 — "  This  (Jesus  Christ) 
is  the  true  God"  in  the  same  manner,  and  say,  Christ  is  only 

*  From  these  words  it  is  evident,  that  not  only  the  cup  and  bread  which  our 
Lord  gave  to  his  disciples  in  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  were  the 
communion  of  his  blood  and  body,  but  also  the  bread  which  was  broken,  &c. 
and  yet  shall  be  to  the  end  of  time.  The  Lord's  supper  was  delivered  to  the 
Corinthian  church  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  and  yet  the  cup  they  blessed 
was  the  communion  of  the  blood,  &c.  I  shall  illustrate  this  by  translating  the 
following  words  of  St.  Chrysostom,  who  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Constantino- 
ple, A.  D.  389.  "Christ  himself,"  says  he,  "prepares  this  table,  and  dotli 
bless  it ;  for  no  man  can  make  the  bread  and  wine  presented  there  Christ's 
body  and  blood,  but  he  who  was  crucified  for  us.  The  words  being  spoken 
by  the  minister's  lips,  yet  through  the  power  and  grace  of  God,  by  the  word, 
when  he  saith,  *  This  is  my  body,'  &c.  the  elements  in  the  sacrament  are  bles- 
sed. Like  the  words  which  were  once  spoken,  '  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  aiia, 
replenish  the  earth"  are  always  efficacious  in  nature,  that  she  grows  and  multi- 
plies, so  are  these  words,  once  spoken,  efficacious  until  now,  and  until  his 
coming  again ;  and  effect  that  in  the  sacrament  of  the  church,  his  true  body 
and  blood  are  present."  Luther  was  not  the  first  who  taught  the  bodily 
presence  of  the  Lord,  but  here  we  have  an  example  of  its  being  taught  by  the 
ancient  fathers;  and  likewise,  the  Greek  church  has  taught  it,  alongtinu- 
t>£fqre  Luther  was  bom, 


$3 


a  token  or  an  emblem  of  God.    Bat  what  man,  unless  he  be 
an  Arian  heretic,  would  suppose  that  Christ  was  only  a  token 
of  God?    But  should  this  only  mean  a  spiritual  communion, 
i.  e.  that  Christ's  spirit  had  communion  with  the  sacrament,  as 
the  other  class  of  my  opponents  imagine,  then  the  cup,  could 
not  have  communion  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  but  with  the 
spirit  of  Christ ;  and  the  bread  could  not  have  communion 
with  the  body  of  Christ,  but  again  with  the  spirit  of  Christ. 
How  ridiculous  would  it  be  to  say,  The  cup  of  blessing  which* 
we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  ?  The 
bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  spirit  of 
Christ  ?    Has  Christ  two  spirits,  so  that  one  has  communion 
with  the  cup,  and  the  other  with  bread  ?    And  since  when  is  a 
body  to  be  called  a  spirit  ?    And  likewise,  since  when  is  blood 
to  be  called  spirit,  i.  e.  Christ's  Godhead  ?    Body  and  blood 
no  where  denote  Christ's  divinity,  but  his  humanity.    In  order 
to  evade  the  force  of  this  argument,  that  bread  has  commun- 
ion with  his  body,  &c.  some  have,  in  former  times,  explained 
the  body  of  Christ,  in  this  passage,  not  to  be  his  real,  but  his 
mystic  body — that  is,  the  Church.    But  how  can  this  be,  when 
the  Apostle  mentions  his  mystic  body  in  the  next  verse  ? — ■ 
*'  For  we  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body."  Should 
the  Apostle  make  an  unreasonable  tautology,  to  mention  the 
very  same  over  again  which  he  had  described  already  ?   If  the 
term  bodyy  in  the  first  mentioned  passage,  is  to  signify  his  mys- 
tic body,  the  Church,  what  then  is  the  term  blood,  which  is 
connected  with  body,  to  signify  ?    Or,  indeed,  has  Christ  two 
churches,  so  that  the  one  is  called  body  and  the  other  blood  ? 
"What  a  ridiculous  conclusion  this  would  be !    The  Apostle 
does  not  say,  "  We  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body, 
and  one  wine  and  one  blood  !" 

These  words  also  show,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  does  not 
only  consist  of  one  kind  of  substance,  but  of  two — bread  and 
wine  as  the  earthly,  and  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  as  the 
heavenly.  This  is  also,  one  reason  why  Lutherans  call  it  the 
real  body  and  blood,  in  order  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Pa- 
pists, who  teach  transubstantiation,  and  from  others  who  teach 
a  substituted  body,  or  emblem,  or  representation  ;  for  an  em- 
blem is  in  the  room  of  a  real  thing.  The  Papists  teach,  that 
bread  and  wine  in  consecration  lose  their  natural  substance, 
and  change  into  Christ ;  hence  this  is  called  transubstantiation. 
Therefore,  it  cannot  be  the  real  body  and  blood,  but  a  newly 
created  body  and  blood,  formed  of  bread  and  wine — for  as 
much  as  Christ's  body  and  blood  are  always  the  same,  and 
cannot  be  formed  anew  at  every  sacrament.  If  the  elements 
changed  into  Christ,  they  could  have  no  communion  with  his 


body  and  blood,  as  it  requires  two  things  to  make  a  commun- 
ion.   It  would  be  ridiculous  to  say,  that  the  self-same  thing- 
should  have  communion  with  itself.    Now  as  transubstantia- 
tion  is  a  vain  dream,  it  must  follow  that  the  Papists  only  ima- 
gine it  to  be  so  ;  and  as  they  deny  two  substances  to  be  in  the 
sacrament,  consequently  bread  and  wine  would  be  an  imagi- 
nary body  and  blood,  or  substitutes  for  the  real.    Some  of  our 
opponents  also  deny  that  there  are  two  substances  in  the  sacra^ 
ment ;  for  they  say  that  the  elements  are  emblems  or  represen- 
tations of  Christ's  body  and  blood.    If  we  ask  them  whether 
all  bread  and  wine  are  emblems  of  his  body  and  blood,  the 
same  as  that  in  the  Eucharist,  they  would  answer  no  :  for  if 
they  did  not,  they  would  make  the  sacrament  no  more  than  a 
common  thing.    What,  then,  makes  bread  and  wine  emblems, 
when  it  must  be  confessed  that  common  bread  and  wine  are 
not  such  1    It  must  be  answered,  the  consecration,  or  the  set- 
ting apart  from  a  common  to  a  holy  use :  hence  bread  and 
wine  must  also  undergo  a  change  ;  and  what  is  this  a  whit  be- 
hind transubstantiatiojn  ?    When  the  elements  change  into  em- 
blems of  Christ,  it  is  complete  transubstantiation,  only  in  a 
different  dress  from  that  of  the  Papists.    The  Papists  imagine 
that  the  elements  change  into  Christ;  yet  it  is  only  an  imagi- 
nation of  theirs :  they  have  only  an  imaginary,  or  substitute, 
Christ.    My  opponents  do  not  believe  that  they  change  into 
Christ ;  but  by  consecration  they  become  emblems  of  Christ, 
or  a  substitute  body  and  blood.    All  protestants  who  are  op- 
posed to  transubstantiation,  declare  it  to  be  a  superstitious 
idolatry.    Why  so  ?    It  could  be  no  idolatry  if  the  elements 
did  change  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  for  it  is  no 
sin,  but  a  duty,,  to  worship  Christ.    But  transubstantiation  is 
idolatry,  not  because  it  is  Christ,  but  because  it  is  considered 
as  such,  when  it  is  not,  but  something  in  his  stead.    Is  tran° 
substantiation  idolatry  because  it  is  substituted  for  Christ,  then 
emblems,  representations,  or  images,  must  be  idolatry  for  the 
very  same  reason,  for  they'are  also  substitutes  of  Christ.  But 
is  it  not  contrary  to  God's  word,  to  make  emblems  or  images  ? 
u  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  like- 
ness of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth 
beneath"  &c.  Exod.  c.  20,  v.  4,  5.    Is  it  not  astonishing,  that 
many  Christians  who  affect  to  be  enemies  to  all  image  wor- 
ship, themselves  argue  that  bread  and  wine  are  emblems  of 
the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  which  they  eat  and  drink  with 
great  veneration.*    But  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  idolatry, 

*  There  is  a  gTeat  difference  between  emblems,  and  tlie  types  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Emblems  in  the  New  are  substitutes  of  a  real  Saviour,  who  is  in  ex- 
~£cnce:  but  types  showed  one  to  come,  who  was  not.   Emblems  now  aro 


5+ 


or  the  making  of  any  likeness  of  any  thing,  will  debar  sudb 
souls  who  are  addicted  to  it  from  eternal  salvation.  But  on 
supposition  it  were  no  idolatry,  would  the  breaking  of  bread 
and  the  cup  be  fit  emblems  to  represent  the  broken  body  and 
shed  blood  of  Christ  ?  Broken  bread  cannot  represent  a  bro- 
ken body.  Christ's  body,  indeed,  was  bruised  and  wounded, 
and  in  this  manner  broken  ;  but  by  no  means  broken  into  pie- 
ces, like  bread  is  broken,  for  not  a  bone  was  broken  in  him  ; 
(see  John,  c.  19,  v.  36;)  hence  the  breaking  of  bread  cannot 
represent  the  breaking  of  his  body.  Jesus  broke  the  bread  in 
order  to  use  it,  so  that  each  of  his  disciples  might  receive  a 
portion.  Neither  can  wine  be  a  fit  emblem  to  represent  the 
shedding  of  his  blood.  His  body  was  pierced,  and  from  the 
wounds  his  blood  flowed.  I}ut  bread  is  not  pierced,  so  that 
wine  gushes  from  it,  like  the  blood  did  from  our  Saviour's 
body:  hence  bread  and  wine,  viewed  in  this  light,  cannot  rep- 
resent his  sufferings  and  death. f 
("^  The  words,  u  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  bloody 
which  is  shed  for  you,"  examined. 

The  cup  is  not  only  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ, 
but  it  is  also  the  "New  Testament  in  his  blood"  What  does 
the  word  testament  signify  ?  Answer — the  last  will  of  a  per- 
son concerning  his  estate  after  his  death.  A  will  conveys  real 
property  :  an  emblem,  or  a  token,  is  only  a  representation  of 
property,  but  conveys  none.  What  would  it  profit,  if  a  father 
would  give  images  or  tokens  of  his  property  to  his  children  I 
This  would  not  be  giving  them  property,  therefore  it  could 
not  be  a  testament.  Now  if  the  Lord's  Supper  only  consis- 
ted of  emblems,  it  would  be  false  to  call  it  a  testament,  because 
that  is  no  emblem,  but  a  conveying  of  property.  Christ  calls 
it  "  the  cup  of  the  Nezv  Testament  in  his  blood."    A  new  tes-? 

likenesses  of  things  that  are  ;  but  types  were  no  emblems  or  likenesses  of  au> 
^hing  that  was,  but  showed  things  to  come.  Should  we  now  have  types,  r. 
would  prove  that  the  Saviour  was  yet  to  come. 

f  Lutherans  do  not  suppose  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  his  body  and  blood, 
but  only  when  it  is  administered  to*  and  received  by,  the  communicant,  agree- 
ably to  the  divine  command.  Otherwise,  when  the  elements  are  not  distribu- 
ted, they  are  simply  such,  without  any  other  import,  The  giving  and  the  ta- 
king of  the  elements  according  to  the  words,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body," 
&c.  is  what  makes  the  sum  and  substance  of  this  sacrament.  But  if  the  ele- 
ments were  to  change  into  Christ*  or  into  emblems  of  Christ,  they  would  be 
such  still  after  the  celebration,  as  well  as  before ;  hence  it  would  be  criminal 
to  cat  and  drink  them  in  a  common  way,  or  let  them  be  destroyed.  What 
could  be  more  idolatrous  and  superstitious,  than  to  esteem  those  elements  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  preserve  them,  lest  they  be  destroyed  or  misused  ?  The 
doctrine  of  Lutherans  is  far  removed  from  all  such  superstition ;  because  they 
teach  no  change  of  the  elements,  neither  into  Christ  nor  into  emblems  or  to* 
kens  of  Christ ;  but  simply,  when  administered,  his  body  and  blood  are  recei- 
ved, by  virtue  of  the  command  which  is  added,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,"  &£. 


lament  must  convey  new  property,  otherwise  it  coultl  not  fee? 
new  ;  hence  types  and  shadows  can  find  no  place  here,  because 
they  were  already  appointed  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
and  were  properties  of  the  old  testament,  and  all  pointed  to  the 
substance  of  the  new,  which  is  the  Lord's  humanity.  The  old 
testament  was  also  dedicated  with  blood,  but  not  with  such 
precious  blood  as  that  of  the  new.*  44  Whereupon  neither  the 
first  testament  xvas  dedicated  zuithout  blood :  for  when  Moses 
had  spoken  every  prece4$  iq  all  the  people ;  according  to  the  law, 
he  took  the  blood  of  calves,  and  of  goats,  zvith  water,  and  scar- 
let wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the 
people,  saying,  This  is  the  blood  of  the  testament  which  God 
hath  enjoined  unto  you"  8tc— Heb.  9,  v.  18,20.  See  fcxod. 
c.  24,  v.  8.  This  was  typical  of  the  New  Testament,  hence  of 
the  blood  of  Jesus.  See  Heb.  9,  8,  14.  The  blood  of  ani- 
mals could  not  be  a  type  of  the  spirit  of  Christ,  for  his  spirit, 
or  divinity,  is  from  eternity,  (see  John,  c.  1.)  hence  could  not 
be  typified.  There  can  be  no  type  where  the  substance  is 
present.  His  divinity  was  present,  but  his  human  blood  was 
not  then  in  existence,  hence  it  could  be  typified.  Now  as  th« 
blood  of  animals  was  sprinkled  upon  the  book  of  the  old  tes- 
tament, and  that  being  a  type  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  so  now  is 
his  blood  in  the  cup  of  the  sacrament.  He  doth  not  say, u  This 
cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  spirit,"  as  his  spirit  was  noth- 
ing new,  for  the  Israelites  partook  of  it  already  in  the  wilder- 
ness— L  Cor.  chap.  10;  but  he  saith  in  his  blood,  which  was 

*  The  word  fS  testament,"  in  the  original  Greek,  diatJiehe,  also  signifies  a 
covenant.  Perhaps  this  expression  is*  borrowed  from  some  oriental  custom. 
History  informs  us,  that  it  was  a  very  ancient  custom  among  the  monarchs  of 
the  east,  to  enter  into  covenants  with  each  other,  which  was  done  by  drinking 
a  cup  of  wine,  in  which  the  covenanting"  parties  put  some  of  their  own  blood, 
to  show  their  covenant  to  be  so  intimate  that  even  their  blood  was  incorpora- 
ted with  each  other.  Now  if  the  expression,  "The  cup  of  the  new  testament 
or  covenant,"  be  borrowed  from  such  a  custom,  which  is  very  likely,  then  it 
would  prove  that  Christ  makes  such  an  intimate  covenant  with  believers  that 
he  even  puts  his  blood  into  the  cup  for  them  to  drink.  It  must,  therefore,  be 
very  criminal  to  despise  such  a  covenant — Heb.  10,  29.  The  passover  was 
also  a  divine  institution  in  the  old  testament :  it  was  in  lieu  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  annually  celebrated  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  first  month  in  the 
year — Exod.  12.  But  the  Lord's  supper  is  not  confined  to  this  day,  once  a 
year  only,  but  may  be  celebrated  oftener :  "  Thi$  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,9 
&c.  I.  Cor.  11,  25.  The  passover  consisted  of  a  lamb,  which  was  eat,  and  the 
blood  thereof  was  struck  upon  the  two  side  posts  and  the  upper  door  post  oi 
the  houses — Ex.  12,  v.  7.  They  eat  unleavened  bread,  &c.  with  it.  It  is  also 
evident,  from  Luke  22,  17,  that  there  was  also  a  cup  used  in  the  passover. 
Agreeably  to  this,  the  passover  had,  with  the  paschal  lamb,  bread  and  wine, 
the  same  as  the  Lord's  supper.  The  paschal  lamb  was  a  type  of  Jesus  Christ . 
"  For  even  Christ  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  as" — I.  Cor.  5,  7.  The  Apostle 
calls  him  the  passover,  because  the  paschal  lamb  was  a  type  of  him.  See  Heb, 
11.  28.  If  the  lamb  in  the  passover  was  present,  why  should  not  the  Lore!-' 
body,  be  present  in  the  sacrament,  when  tbe  lamb  was  a  type  of  him? 


something  riew.  Thai  the  Son  of  God  became  man,  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  was  so  unprecedentedly  new,  that  angels  and 
archangels  gazed  with  wonder  at  beholding  this  mystery.  This 
new  thing  is  given  to.  sinners,  in  this  new  testament.  Lest 
any  one  should  mistake  this  blood  for  another  blood,  such  as 
emblematical  blood,  or  even  to  mistake  it  for  his  spirit,  he 
adds,  "which  is  shed  for  you."  That  same  blood  which  was 
shed  on  M^unt  Calvary  to  atone  for  guilt,  ia  connected  with 
the  cup.  The  same  is  also  said  of  his  body:  "This  is  my 
body,  which  is  given  fox  you"— Luke  22,  19  ;  given  into  death, 
and  rose  again  from  the  dead  ;  hence  his  real  human  body. 
Wonderful  c  up,  indeed  !  A  cup  in  the  beautiful  blood  of 
Jesus,  sprinkled  therewith  ;  a  blood  that  cleanses  from  all  in- 
iquity;  a  cup  of  medicine  held  to  the  lips  of  sick,  dying  sin- 
ners ! 

The  words,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,"  considered. 

"Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body  ;  do  this  in  remembrance  of 
me."  It  is  thus  expressed  by  St.  Luke,  and  likewise  by  St. 
Paul — I.  Cor.  11.  Some  of  my  opponents  imagine  that  the 
Lord's  body  and  blood  cannot  be  present  in  the  sacrament,  be- 
cause it  is  to  be  done  in  remembrance  of  him  ;  for  it  is  said, 
if  a  person  is  to  be  remembered,  then  it  is  necessary  for  him 
to  be  absent ;  therefore  Christ  is  absent.  And  again,  it  is 
supposed  that  the  words,  "do  this  in  remembrance  of  me," 
destroy  the  force  of  the  former,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body," 
&c. ;  so  that  the  whole  is  to  be  considered  as  mere  memorials 
of  Christ's  sufferings  and  death.  This  is  the  principal  fortress 
on  which  the  opponents  ground  the  most  of  their  arguments. 
But  if  this  were  true,  that  the  Lord's  supper  could  not  be  re- 
ceived in  remembrance  if  Christ  was  present,  then  it  would 
prove  that  the  first  sacrament  the  Lord  instituted  in  the  night 
in  which  he  was  betrayed  could  not  have  been  genuine ;  be- 
cause the  Lord  was  not  only  present,  but  visibly  present. 
Xiow,  then,  agreeably  to  the  argument  of  my  opponents,  could 
the  Lord's  disciples  eat  and  drink  the  elements  in  remem- 
brance of  him  when  he  was  visibly  present  ?  The  disciples 
were  then  commanded  to  do  it  at  that  time,  in  remembrance 
of  him,  as  well  as  afterwards,  for  as  much  as  the  institution 
was  not  afterwards  to  be  changed.  This,  of  itself,  would  be 
sufficient  to  show,  that  the  argument  of  my  opponents,  "That 
Christ  must  be  absent  if  he  is  to  be  remembered,",  must  be 
groundless.  I  have  proved  that  Christ  was  visibly  present 
when  he  gave  the  supper  to  his  disciples  ;  and  yet,  at  the  same 
time,  he  said  to  them,  "  Do  this  in  remembranae  of  me."  The 
objection  of  my  opponents  would  be  of  some  force,  provided 
Christ  was  to  be  remembered  in  the  same  manner  as  sorm? 


57 


good  friend  who  departed  this  life,  and  left  some  tokens  of  h;s 
love.  Bat  if  this  were  the  case,  it  would  suppose  Christ  to  be 
dead.  Is  he  dead?  No:  he  is  alive,  for  evermore:  hence  it 
must  be  out  of  the  question  to  remember  him  in  the  same 
manner  as  a  deceased  friend,  unless  his  resurrection  be  denied, 
It  is  evident,  that  neither  an  absent  nor  a  dead  Saviour  is  to 
be  remembered.  What  manner  of  remembrance,  may  it" be 
asked,  is  it  then  ?  There  is  a  remembrance  mentioned  in  the 
scriptures,  which  implies  a  believing  or  trusting  in  another 
help.  "  O  my  God,  my  soul  is  cast  down  within  me  ;  there- 
fore will  I  remember  thee,"  &c. — Psalm  42,  6.  Why  does 
the  Psalmist  say  he  will  remember  God  ?  Answer :  because 
his  soul  was  cast  down  within  him.  But  what  consolation 
could  it  have  been  to  him  in  his  distress  to  have  remembered 
an  absent  God  ?  Could  a  God  that  was  afar  off  afford  him 
any  assistance  in  his  gloomy  situation  ?  This  shows  that  the 
Psalmist  trusted  in  God  ;  hence  not  in  an  absent  God,  but  in 
God  who  "is  a  very  present  help  in  trouble"-- -Psalm  46,  1. 
Thus  to  remember  God  in  one's  distress,  is  the  same  as  to 
trust  in  him.  Now  as  a  living  Saviour  is  to  be  remembered, 
it  is  the  same  as  to  trust  or  believe  in  him.  But  how  can  one 
trust  to  him  when  he  is  afar  off?  Is  it  possible  to  trust  to 
bread  and  wine  ?  Are  we  to  believe  in,  bread  and  wine  ?  Are 
we  to  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  him,  which  is  the  same 
as  to  eat  and  drink  trusting  in  him,  when  he  is  not  present  ? 
What,  trust  in  an  absent  help  ?  How  paradoxical !  If  we  are 
to  do  it  in  remembrance  of  him,  or  in  faith,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  our  faith  must  have  a  foundation  to  rest  upon.  Em- 
blems are  no  foundation  ;  neither  are  they  an  object  of  faith  ; 
hence  it  is  impossible  to  receive  the  sacrament  in  faith,  unless 
an  object  of  faith  be  therewith  connected.  The  only  object  of 
faith  is  the  crucified  Jesus ;  hence,  if  the  sacrament  is  to  be 
received  in  faith,  he  must  also  be  received  thereby. 

As  it  respects  the  other  objection, that  the  words,  "Do  this 
in  remembrance  of  me,"  should  destroy  the  force  of  the  words, 
"  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,"  &c.  so  that  all  should  mean 
mere  memorials  of  Christ's  sufferings,  &c.  I  reply,  that  if  our 
Saviour  had  intended  the  latter  words  should  destroy  the  force 
of  the  former,  he  never  would  have  uttered  the  former.  What 
man  of  common  sense  would  make  a  thing  which  he  intended 
to  destroy  at  the  very  same  instant?  Or  can  it  be  imagined 
that  Christ  did  not  know  what  he  was  saying,  that  he  would 
speak  a  thing  in  a  careless  manner,  which  he  would  afterwards 
be  compelled  to  recall  ?  No  one  can,  without  blasphemy,  say 
so.  Had  he  meant  that  the  words,  "Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body,"  &c.  should  mean  the  same  as  a  memorial  or  remem- 


38 

bvance,  why  then  does  he  add  the  words,  £t  Do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me  r"  How  would  it  read,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body,  &c.  which  is  a  mere  remembrance  :  Do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me  ?"  What,  should  one  thing  be  mentioned  twice 
In  the  same  sentence  ?  Can  our  blessed  Saviour  be  charged 
with  such  absurd  folly,  to  express  himself  in  such  a  ridiculous 
manner,  which  even  would  be  exploded  in  a  school-boy  ?  Nov/ 
if  we  allow  our  Saviour  to  have  expressed  himself  like  a  man 
of  wisdom,  we  cannot  imagine  that  he  would  mean  one  thing 
by  tWo  different  expressions  in  the  same  sentence  :  hence, 
"  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,"  &c.  means  one  thing  ;  and  "  Do 
this  in  remembrance  of  me,"  another.  The  former  words 
mean  what  they  say  ;  and  the  latter  show  in  what  manner  the 
Lord*s  body  and  blood  are  to  be  received-— in  faith,  or  in  re- 
membrance of  him.  The  former  mean  the  eating  and  drink- 
ing of  Christ's  body  and  blood  with  the  elements,  with  our 
mouths ;  and  the  latter,  the  eating  and  drinking  of  the  same 
by  faith,  with  our  souls.  The  eating  and  drinking  with  our 
mouths  enables  our  souls  to  do  the  same,  since  body  and  soul 
are  united,  so  that  when  an  object  of  faith  is  presented  to  the 
body,  the  soul  may  feed  upon  it. 

The  question,  u  Do  not  Unbelievers,  who  partake  of  the  sa- 
crament, also  eat  and  drink  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  V  ex- 
amined. 

Whereas,  some  of  my  opponents  assert,  that  the  true  believer 
eats  and  drinks  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  by  faith  in  the  sa- 
crament, and  the  unbeliever  receives  nothing  but  the  elements, 
and  thus  cast  a  mist  Upon  the  subject,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
examine  it.  The  question  is  not  at  all  whether  the  unbeliever 
is  benefited  thereby,  which  the  opponents  forever  confound 
with  it.  No  man  believes  that  an  unbeliever  receives  Christ 
by  faith,  nor  that  he  has  eternal  life  abiding  in  him  :  But  the 
question  is,  whether  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  may  not  be 
eat  and  drank  in  unbelief,  as  well  as  in  faith,  in  the  sacrament? 
If  it  was  impossible  to  eat  and  drink  his  body  and  blood  in 
unbelief,  he  would  have  had  no  need  to  command  communi- 
cants to  do  it  in  faith,  or  in  remembrance  of  him.  Where, 
there  is  no  possibility  to  omit  a  thing,  there  is  no  use  to  com- 
mand it.  We  should  by  no  means  be  commanded  to  believe,, 
provided  it  was  impossible  for  us  to  disbelieve.  It  must  be 
granted,  that  no  man's  faith  can  cause  the  Lord's  body  and 
blood  to  have  communion  with  the  elements.  If  our  faith 
could  cause  bread  and  wine  to  be  his  body  and  blood,  then  it 
would  be  as  great  as  himself.  Nothing  can  cause  bread  and 
wine  to  have  communion  with  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  but 
the  wrords  of  his  own  institutione    If  unbelief  could  destroy 


59 


the  words  of  our  Lord,  it  would  prove  that  it  was  stronger 
than  the  truth,  and  cause  the  truth  to  be  a  lie.  "  For  what  if 
some  did  not  believe — shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of 
God  without  effect?" — Rom.  c.  3,  v.  3.  "  If  we  believe  not, 
yet  he  abideth  faithful:  he  cannot  deny  himself" — II.  TimP 
c.  2.  v.  13.  Can  it  be  supposed  that  faith  can  make  a  thing, 
or  unbelief  destroy  it  ?  For  instance,  I  preach  the  gospel  to 
two  men,  the  one  a  believer  and  the  other  an  unbeliever :  can. 
the  one  who  believes  it  make  it  the  gospel  ?  was  it  not  that 
before  ?  or  can  the  other,  who  does  not  believe  it,  cause  that 
it  is  not  the  gospel  ?  Perhaps  the  opponents  do  not  mean  that 
their  faith  can  cause  the  presence  of  Christ,  but  that  they  are 
excited  by  the  elements  to  ascend  with  their  faith  into  heaven, 
and  there  spiritually  eat  and  drink  Christ's  body  and  blood* 
If  so,  why  do  they  talk  about  receiving  the  sacrament  in  faith, 
when  their  object  of  faith,  Christ,  is  to  be  apprehended  in 
heaven  ?  Where  is  it  proved  that  we  must  ascend  to  heaven  to 
receive  Christ  in  faith  ?  The  apostle  affirms  the  contrary :  "  Say 
not  in  thy  heart  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven,  that  is  to  bring 
Christ  down  from  above  ;  or  who  shall  descend  into  the  deep, 
that  is  to  bring  up  Christ  again  from  the  dead.  But  what 
saith  it  ?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in 
thy  heart,"  &c. — Rom.  x.  6,  8.  It  is  very  strange,  indeed,, 
that  the  Lord  is  not  nigh  us  when  we  commune  ;  that  we  must 
say  in  our  hearts,  who  shall  ascend  to  heaven !  If  we  are  to 
ascend  to  heaven  with  our  faith,  where  it  is  supposed  the  man- 
hood of  Christ  is,  what  purpose  can  it  answer  to  receive  the: 
elements,  as  we  might  do  that  without  them  ?  If  I  am  to  re- 
ceive a  thing  by  faith,  it  must  be  such  a  thing  which  I  cannot 
comprehend  with  my  reason ;  for  what  I  know  I  do  not  be- 
lieve :  where  reason  has  its  limits,  there  faith  has  its  begin- 
ning. Bread  and  wine  we  can  see ;  and  if  they  be  emblems,, 
we  may  comprehend  them  with  reason.  Now  if  nothing  in- 
comprehensible be  connected  with  them,  it  is  in  vain  to  talk, 
about  receiving  the  sacrament  in  faith,  as  there  would  be  no 
object  of  faith  there.  Our  faith  must  have  a  foundation^ 
whereupon  it  is  to  build.  Bread  and  wine,  in  themselves,  are 
no  foundation ;  yet  we  must  receive  them  by  faith,  agreeably 
to  the  argument  of  the  opponents.  But  when  the  Lord's  body 
and  blood  are  connected  with  them,  there  is  then  a  complete 
foundation,  which  cannot  be  destroyed  by  the  unbeliever, 
though  he  may  abuse  it.  In  short,  if  the  Lord's  supper  is  to 
be  received  by  faith,  the  object  of  faith,  the  crucified  Jesus, 
must  be  present  and  received.  Faith  must  not  only  build  on 
the  spirit  of  Christ,  as  that  would  not  be  the  whole  Saviour^ 
but  upon  the  mysterious  God-man.    It  is  evident  that  Jucte 


60 


iscariot,  who  was  a  traitor,  partook  of  the  Lord's  supper.  St.  Luke,  c,  2^, 
v.  21,  saith,  "  But,  behold,  the  hand  of  him  that  betrayeth  me  is  with  me  on 
the  table."  The. two  preceding  verses  contain  the  words  of  the  institution  : 
"  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,"  &c. ;  which  plainly  shows  that  Judas  was  with 
the  other  disciples  at  the  table  at  the  same  time.  See  Math.  c.  26,  v.  24,  26, 
Mark,  c.  14,  v.  19,  24.  It  was  administered  to  the  twelve,  hence  also  to  Ju- 
das :  but  we  find  no  exception  made  in  the  words  of  institution,  when  admin- 
istered to  him  Christ  did  not  say,  "Take,  eat,  ye  eleven  that  believe,  this  is 
iny  body,  &c.  but  Judas  thou  shalt  eat  and  drink  bread  and  wine  only." 
Moreover,  Christ  saith,  concerning  the  cup,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it"— Math.  26, 27. 
Judas  was  there,  hence  included.  K  And  they  all  drank  of  it" — Mark  14,  23. 
If  the  eleven  received  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  Judas  received  the  same  ; 
but  if  he  did  not,  it  would  prove  that  the  eleven  did  not — for  they  all  received 
one  kind  of  bread  and  wine,  with  the  same  words,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body," 
&c.  St.  Paul  saith,  L  Cor.  11,  v.  27,  "  Wherefore,  whosoever  shall  eat  this 
bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord."  How  could  any  person  be  guilty  of  the  Lord's  body 
and  blood  by  receiving  the  sacrament,  if  he  received  nothing  but  bread  and 
wine  t  Can  the  eating  and  drinking  of  mere  emblems  make  one  guilty  of  his 
body  and  blood  ?  Could  the  Jews  have  been  charged  with  the  crime  of  cru- 
cifying the  Lord  of  glory,  if  they  only  hadcrueified  his  emblem,  or  image  ?  I 
imagine  not.  But  my  opponents  say,  the  unbelievers  become  guilty  of  his 
body  and  blood  because  they  mingle  with  the  pious,  and  pretend  to  be  what 
they  are  not.  But  how  do  they  prove  it  ?  I  know  of  no  proof  they  can  ad- 
vance :  but  if  they  have  any,  they  would  do  well  to  let  the  public  know  where 
it  is  written  in  the  Bible.  Their  bare  assertion  is  no  proof.  Yet,  if  this  were 
the  case,  that  the  mingling  of  the  unbelievers  among  the  pious,  and  the  pre- 
tending to  that  which  they  are  not,  would  make  them  guilty  of  the  Lord's 
body  and  blood,  then  the  attending  to  public  worship,  or  the  being  baptized, 
or  even  their  joining  in  prayer  with  the  faithful,  would  equally  make  them 
guilty  of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  because  they  would  in  these  cases  also 
mingle  with  the  pious,  and  pretend  to  what  they  were  not.  In  short,  every 
act  of  hypocrisy  would  make  one  guilty  of  the  Lord's  body  ' and  blood.  If  so, 
what  difference  would  there  then  be  between  the  sacrament  and  other  things, 
such  as  preaching,  praying,  &c.  ?  Where  do  we  read,  that  one  becomes  guil- 
ty of  his  body  and  blood  but  only  by  receiving  the  sacrament  unworthily  t  No 
where,  as  far  as  I  know.  The  apostle  further  saith,  v.  29,  "  For  he  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,*  not  dis- 


*"~  *  These  words  terrify  a  number  of  people  from  the  Lord's  table,  as  they 
imagine  if  they  were  not  fully  converted  before  they  approached  it,  their  souls 
should  be  ruined.  Notwithstanding,  it  is  the  opinion  of  a  number  of  such  peo- 
ple, that  the  Lord's  supper  is  no  more  than  a  shadow,  or  an  emblem.  How 
strange,  that  a  shadow  can  injure  a  soul !  These  words  are  grossly  misrepre- 
sented. They  do  not  say  that  an  unconverted  sinner  eats  and  drinks  eternal 
damnation  to  his  own  soul,  as  they  are  understood  by  some.  From  the  20th, 
21st,  and  22d  verses  of  this  chapter,  it  is  evident  that  some  of  the  Corinthians 
were  drunk  at  the  time  of  celebrating  the  supper ;  so  that  they  did  not  know 
what  they  were  doing ;  that  they  made  no  difference  between  the  eating  and 
drinking  of  the  sacrament  and  other  viands.  The  Corinthians  were  accus- 
tomed to  make  feasts  at  the  time  of  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist ;  so  that 
some,  in  the  flow  of  their  festivity,  got  intoxicated ;  hence  the  apostle  rather 
reproves  their  disorderly  manner  of  celebrating  it,  than  their  mental  qualifica- 
tions. He  uses  the  adverb  "unworthily,"  instead  of  the  adjective  "  unwor- 
thy." -  The  adjective  "unworthy"  would  show  an  improper  qualification  in  the 
minds  of  the  communicants ;  but  the  adverb  "  unworthily"  shows  the  impro- 
per, disorderly  manner  in  administering  and  receiving  it  in  a  state  of  intoxica- 
tion. They  did  eat  and  drink  damnation  to  themselves.  What  manner  of 
damnation  was  it  ?  The  original  Greek  has  two  different  words  to  express 
'damnation,"  viz :  krima,  [Lzt'm,  jzidicium,]  judgment,  or  a  temporal  damna- 


61 


cerning  the  Lord's  body.'*  This  shows  it  to  be  criminal  not  to  discern  the 
Lord's  body  ;  but  it  could  not  be  criminal  if  it  were  not  present,  as  it  would 
be  impossible  to  discern  a  thing"  that  was  not.  An  unbeliever  might  justly 
plead  innocence,  if  he  did  not  receive  the  Lord's  body  and  blood.  He  njight 
say,  I  could  discern  nothing-  but  the  elements,  because  I  received  nothing"  etee„. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  justly  accounted  guilty,  for  he  could  have  dis- 

tion  ;  and  kata  krima,  [Latin,  condemnacio,]  eternal  damnation.  The  text, 
reads,  in  Greek,  krima  judgment :  they  eat  and  drink  judgment  to  them- 
selves.   The  German  translation  reads  like  the  original  g-ericht,  judgment. 

This  is  confirmed  the  more  by  the  verses  which  immediately  follow,  viz.  "  For 
this  cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and  many  sleep.  For  if  we 
would  judge  ourselves,  we  should  not  be  judged.  But  when  we  are  judged, 
we  are  chastened  of  the  Lord,  that  we  should  not  be  condemned  with  the 
world" — :y.  30,  32.  For  what  cause  were  many  weak  and  sickly  among  them  ? 
Answer  :  Because  they  received  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  unworthily.  Why 
were  the  Corinthians  judged?  Answer:  In  order  that  they  should  be  chas- 
tised. Why  were  they  chastised  ?  Answer  :  That  they  might  not  be  con- 
demned with  the  world.  Who  are  the  world  ?  Answer  :  Such  as  reject  the 
means  of  the  gospel.  This  plainly  shows,  that  the  damnation  which  was  in- 
flicted upon  them  was  not  to  destroy  their  souls,  but  to  afflict  their  bodies,  in 
order  to  bring-  them  to  repentance,  that  they  might  be  saved.  God,  like  a 
kind  father,  makes  use  of  the  rod  of  temporal  affliction  to  keep  communicants 
from  everlasting  destruction.  No  kind  father  corrects  his  child  in  order  to 
kill  it,  but  to  keep  it  from  the  gallows.  It  is  beyond  all  dispute,  that  the 
apostle  Peter,  when  he  received  the  Lord's  supper  in  the  night  in  which  he 
was  betrayed,  was  not  fully  converted  to  God ;  and  his  faith,  (if  it  may  be  call- 
ed so,)  was  in  a  very  imperfect  degree.  That  night,  after  the  supper,  he  de- 
nied our  Saviour  with  an  oath.  See  Math  26,  v.  70,  74.  That  Peter  was  not 
then  a  humble,  dependent  believer  on  our  Saviour,  is  evinced  from  the  35th 
verse,  viz.  "  Peter  said  unto  him,  Though  I  should  die  with  thee,  yet  will  not 
1  deny  thee.  Likewise,  also,  said  all  the  disciples."  An  exercised  believer 
does  not  trust  to  his  own  strength,  as  it  is  here  stated  with  respect  to  Peter 
and  the  other  disciples.  They  all  fled  from  our  Saviour,  Christ,  also,  said 
unto  Peter,  "  And  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren" — Luke 
22,  v.  32.  Now  if  the  disciples,  who  were  in  a  very  imperfect  degree  of  faith> 
were  permitted  to  receive  the  Lord's  supper,  why  should  not  persons  at  this 
time  be  allowed  to  receive  the  same,  even  if  they  were  as  weak  as  Peter,  and 
subject  to  fall  as  he  was.  Christ  is  still  the  same  merciful  Saviour  as  he  was 
then.  He  came  into  the  world  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost;  but 
had*  he  instituted  a  sacrament  which  destroyed  men's  souls,  it  could  not  be 
true  that  he  came  to  save  the  lost.  A  physician  who,  knowingly,  administered 
poison  to  his  sick  patients,  and  killed  them,  would  be  considered  a  murderer. 
What  could  one  think  of  Christ,  if  he  had  instituted  a  sacrament  that  would 
poison  sinners'  souls,  and  effect  their  eternal  ruin  ?  Could  he  then  be  a 
merciful  Saviour,  who  came  to  save  sinners  ?  No  he  would  be  a  de- 
stroyer !  To  think  or  say  so,  would  be  a  most  horrid  blasphemy :  and  yet 
many  people  are  such  blasphemers,  and  think  they  mean  it  well,  when  they 
are  terrifying  others,  from  the  Lord's  table,  by  representing  it  as  a  dangerous 
trap  !  Poor  sinners  are  afraid  to  approach  to  a  merciful  Saviour  in  the  sacra- 
ment, for  fear  their  souls  should  be  poisoned.  If  we  ask  a  number  of  such., 
who  say  they  are  not  fit  to  commune,  whether  they  believe  in  Christ,  they  say 
yes.  What  an  absurdity !  A  man  who  believes  in  Christ  shall  be  saved  :  he 
is  entitled  to  heaven  itself ;  why  then  should  he  not  also  consider  himself  al- 
lowed to  commune  ?  What,  is  the  Load's  supper  more  holy  than  heaven  it^ 
self,  so  that  one  may  be  fit  to  enter  into  heaven,  and  yet  not  be  fit  to  approach 
to  the  Lord's  supper?  If  these  people"  believed  in  Christ,  they  would  com- 
mune ;  but  as  they  do  not,  they  are  disobedient  to  God's  institution  :  a  dis- 
obedient person  is  an  unbeliever ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned 
Where  people  were  desirous  to  receive  it,  and  could  not  havc:  an  opportunit  v 
their  case  would  be  far  different 


o2 


cerned  the  Lord's  body  had  he  believed,  because  he  reaiiy  received  it.  Bill 
there  are  several  objections  urged  against  the  unbeliever's  eating  and  drink- 
ing- the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  \vhic|i  perplex  the  unexperienced.  It  is  said 
by  my  opponents,  if  the  unbeliever  received  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  that 
he  undoubtedly  would  have  eternal  life,  as  it  is  said,  "  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh, 
and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day" — John,  c.  6,  v.  54.  What  c^n  be  proved  by  this  ?  Is  it  to.  prove,  that 
whoso  eateth  and  drinketh  Christ's  body  and  blood  with  bread  and  wine,  should 
have  eternal  life  ?  The  Lord's  supper  was  not  instituted  at  that  time  when 
our  Saviour  spake  these  words  ;  hence  the  objection  is  groundless.  Luther- 
ans admit  that  there  may  be  an  eating  and  drinking  of  the  Lord's  body  and 
blood  by  faith,  in  addition  to  that  of  eating  and  drinking  with  the  mouth.  Au 
ihe  time  our  Saviour  spake  these  words,  the  eating  and  drinking  with  the 
elements  was  not  in  vogue ;  hence  people  then  could  only  do  the  same  by 
faith.  But  if  there  was  not  another  eating  and  drinking  in  the  sacrament  than 
by  faith,  then  it  would  be  a  useless  institution,  because  that  was  done  before. 
Jft  is  readily  admitted,  that  since  the  sacrament  is  instituted,  we  must  eat  and 
drink  Christ  in  two  ways  ■  first,  with  bread  and  wine  with  our  mouths ;  and 
secqndly,  with  our  souls  in  faith  ;  and  that  the  eating  with  our  mouths  is  to  as- 
sist our  souls ;  hence,  a  person  who  eats  and  drinks  with  his  soul  as  well  as 
with  his  mouth,  indeed  has  eternal  life  -x  but  this  does  not  prove  that  every  one 
who  eats  and  drinks  with  his  mouth,  should  have  eternal  life,  because  he  may 
not  eat  and  drink  by  faith.  There  is  no  inconsistency  to' say,  that  one  may  eat 
and  drink  of  Christ,  and  yet  not  be  saved,  for  the  want  of  a  constant  faith.  It 
is  expressly  said,  that  all  the  Israelites  who  left  Egypt,  "  Did  all  eat  the  same 
spiritual  meat,  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink ;  for  they  drank  of 
that  spiritual  Kock  that  followed  them— and  that  Hock  was  Christ :  But  with 
many  of  them  God  was  no.t  well  pleased,  for  they  were  overthrown  in  the  wil- 
derness"— I.  Cor.  10,  v.  3,  5.  Were  all  those  Israelites  who  partook  of  the 
.same  spiritual  meat  and  drink,  that  is  of  Christ,  believers  ?  If  they  were,  how 
came  it,  then,  that  God  was  not  well  pleased  with  many  of  them,  and  that  they 
were  overthrown  in  the  wilderness  ?  If  they  ever  had  any  faith,  it  was  not  a 
constant  faith  ;  it  wTas  soon  shipwrecked.  "  But  with  whom  was  he  grieved 
forty  years  ?  Was  it  not  with  them  that  had  sinned,  whose  carcasses  fell  in  the 
wilderness  ?  And  to  whom  swnre  he  that  they  should  not  enter  into  his  rest, 
but  to  them  that  believed  not  ?  So  we  see  that  they  could  not  enter  in,  be- 
cause  of  unbelief" — Heb.  3,  v.  17,  19.  Yet  we  are  informed  that  they  did  all 
eat  and  drink  of  the  same  spiritual  meat  and  drink,  that  is  of  Christ.  Why 
were  they  not  saved,  if  it  be  true  that  whosoever  eats  arid  drinks  of  Christ 
cannot  be  lost  ?  I  have  positively  proved  that  the  Israelites  did  partake* of 
Christ,  and  yet  that  many  were  lost  because  of  unbelief  They  cither  did  not. 
believe  at  all,  or  else  if  they  did,  they  immediately  departed  from  the  faith,  and 
ihus  had  rib  constant  faith.  If  they  did  not  believe,  then  it  proves  that  they 
did  eat  and  drink  in  unbelief :  but  if  they  did  believe,  it  proves  that  it  is  possi- 
ble for  a  person  to  tall  from  faith.  It  is  in  vain  to  endeavor  to  evade  the  force 
of  this  argument,  by  saying  that  the  Israelites  only  partook  of  Christ  typically. 
What  then  ?  It  must,  if  it  be  typical,  correspond  with  the  substance,  else  it 
could  not  have  been  typical.  What  they  djd  with  the  types,  we  may  now  do 
with  the  substance  ;  hence,  for  our  admonition,  it  is  recorded,  verse  6.  It  is, 
therefore,  not  impossible  Tbr  a  person  to  eat  and  drink  of  Christ,  and  yet  be 
damned  afterwards' ;  either  because  he  did  not  do  it  in  faith,  or  else  because 
he  loses  it  afterwards.  Because  rnany  do  not  believe  that  Christ  is  omnipresent 
with  his  manhood  as  well  as  with  his  godhead,  therefore  they  deny  that  his~ 
body  and  blood  are  administered  in  the  sacrament  It  is  also  a  natural  conse- 
quence, that  if  his  omnipresence  be  denied,  that  he  cannot  be  omnipotent. 
But  if  we  believe  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  manhood,  in  consequence  thereof,  received  all  divine  per- 
fections. "  And  the  word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us" — John  i.  14 
What  manner  of  word  is  it  that  was  made  flesh  ?  Answer  :  The  word  that  was. 
In  the  beginning,  by  whom  all  things  were  made ;  hence  the  Son  of  God.  be:- 


63 


gotten  of  the  father  fronv  cteiflpty,  of  the  same  essence,  equal  in  power  and 
glory,  was  made  flesh.  The  term  flesh  denotes  the  manhood  of  Christ,  having; 
a  body  and  a  reasonable  soul :  thus  the  Son  of  God  was  made  man,  or,  "  God 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  &c. — I.  Tim.  3, 16.  The  Son  of  God  is  omnipotent, 
for  by  him  the  universe  was  made  :  he  that  is  omnipotent  must  also  be  omnis- 
cient, omnipresent :  in  short,  he  must  possess,  of  himself,  all  divine  perfections. 
This  Son  of  God  became  man  ;  therefore,  this  man,  who  is  called  Jesus,  must: 
likewise  possess  all  divine  perfections.  God  and  man  are  inseparably  one  me-' 
diator,  so  that  there  is  no  Son  of  God,  unless  he  is  in  this  man,  and  this  man  can- 
not be  without  this  God.  In  this  man  "  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  godhead 
bodily" — Col.  2,  9.  Is  God  almighty,  so  is  this  man,  because  an  almighty  God. 
is  ibwJhng"  with  almighty  power  in  this  man,  which  makes  this  man  almighty. 
Is  God  omnipresent,  so  must  this  man  be,  because  omnipresence  dwells  with 
fulness  in  this  man,  which  makes  him  omnipresent,  &c*  We  do  not  teach  that 
God  changed  into  man^  nor  man  into  God ;  but  because  God  bodily  dwell:-; 
with  all  his  fulness  in  this  man,  this  causes  this  man  to  have  all  divine  perfec- 
tions. Man,  in  himself,  without  this  unity  in  God,  could  not  have  them ;  bu'; 
with  it,  this  man  has  what  God  has.  Now  if  there  be  a  God  who  is  not  man, 
then  it  is  not  true  that  God  was  made  man,  which  would  be  contrary  to  the 
gospel,  if  a  God  can  b6  found  any  where  (I  mean  the  Son  of  God)  in  the 
universe,  and  not  the  man  Jesus  with  him,  then  there  would  be  a  God  who 
was  not  man  ;  hence  it  would  be  false,  what  the  gospel  saith,  that  "  the  word 
was  made  flesh."  If  a  God  be  found  where  the  man  Jesus  is  not  with  him* 
we  may  rely  upon  it,  it  is  the  very  Devil,  instead  of  Jehovah. f    Then  to  deny 


*  It  is  the  common  objection  of  my  opponents,  that  Christ's  body  is  not  large 
enough  to  extend  over  the  whole  world ;  that,  therefore,  he  could  not  be  om  - 
nipresent :  and,  likewise,  that  two  substances  could  not  occupy  one  and  the 
same  space  at  one  and  the  same  time  :  hence,  that  Christ's  body  could  not  fiU. 
every  space  that  every  other  substance  did.    Thus  these  men  suppose,  that  i£ 
Christ  be  omnipresent,  he  must  be  expanded  like  the  air  over  the  universe,  or 
like  a  sheet  in  a  room.    This  is  the  crude,  ridiculous  philosophy  which  many- 
introduce  to  disprove  the  omnipresence  of  our  J^ord's  humanity.    Do  these 
men  imagine  that  God,  as  a  spirit,  is  omnipresent  like  the  thin  air  is  expanded 
over  the  universe  ?    They  must ;  or  else,  how 'could  they  ever  ha\  e  made  the 
above  objection.    God  is  without  parts,  indivisible ;  hence  cannot  be  omni- 
present like  the  thin  expanded  air  over  the  universe.    Before  the  creation  of 
the  universe,  how  could  God  be  expanded  over  the  universe  like  the  thin  air, 
•when  there  was  nothing-  ?    God  surely  did  not  change  since  the  creation,  so 
that  he  is  now  expanded  with  parts.    The  humanity  of  our  Loi'd  is  omnipres- 
ent in  the  very  same  manner  as  God  is  omnipresent,  because  "  God  was  made 
flesh."    If  any  one  can  tell  how  God  is  omnipresent,  then  he  can  also  tell  how 
the  Lord's  body  is  omnipresent.    But  without  controversy,  this  is  a  great  mys  - 
tery !    Yet  many  do  not  believe  his  humanity  to  be  omnipresent,  merely  be  - 
cause they  cannot  see  with  their  reason  how  it  can  be  possible.    Such  make 
a  God  of  their  reason,  and  even  wish  divine  revelation  itself  to  bend  to  its 
dictates.    A  sacrament,  or  a  Christ,  that  we  could  comprehend  with  our  rea- 
son, would  be  no  greater  than  our  reason.    An  imbecile  Christ,  indeed !  whom 
we  could  comprehend :  he  could  not  be  a  Saviour !    Pitiful  must  be  the  argu- 
ment "  I  cannot  believe  the  Lord's  humanity  to  be  omnipresent,  because  I 
<sannot  see  into  it  with  my  reason  !"    Upon  the  same  ground,  I  might  deny 
any  mystery.    For  instance..,.!  might,  with  equal  propriety,  say  I  do  n6t  be- 
lieve the  world  was  made  out  of  nothing,  because  I  cannot  comprehend  with 
my  reason  how  a  thing  can  be  made  out  of  nothing !    But  would  not  such  a- 
man  be  deemed  a  fool,  that  denied  the  world  was  made  ?    "Was  it  possible  for 
God  to  make  the  world  out  of  nothing,  who  dare  say  that  he  has  not  equal 
power  to  give  us  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  to  cat  and  to  drink  in  the  sacra- 
ment ?    Who  art  thou,  O  man !  that  dost,  with  thy  corrupted  reason,  circum- 
scribe omnipotence  itself? 
t  Such  as  teach  the  manhood  of  Christ  to  be  present  in  heaven  only,  and 


64 


ilia'  man  is  where  God  is,  (eveiy  where,)  is  also  denying  that  God  came  mi 
the  flesh  :  denying  that  his  body  and  blood  are  present  in  the  sacrament,  i 
denying  that  man  is  where  God  is.    That  Christ  has  received  divine  perfec 
tiowS,  is  evident  from  the  holy  scriptures :  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  i 
lu  a .en  and  in  earth"— Math.  28,  v.  18.    All  power  could  not  have  been  give 
to  his  godhead,  for  to  God  nothing  can  be  given,  as  he  has  all  from  eternity 
hence  all  power  must  have  been  given  to  his  manhood.    Christ "  ascended  uj 
far  above  all  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things" — Eph.  iv.  10.    This  ^how 
that  Christ  is  not  confined  in  heaven,  for  he  ascended  up  far  above  all  heaven; 
that  he  might  fill  all  things.    With  his  manhood  he  ascended :  the  same  ths 
ascended,  also  fills  all  things.    He  that  fills  all  things  is  omnipresent  •  hppe 
the  Lord's  humanity  is  omnipresent.    "  God  raised  up  Christ  ... 
and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  heavenly  places" — Eph .  chap     rer.  2( 
Christ's  manhood  was  raised  up  from  the  dead,  hence  that  was  also  exalted  j 
God's  own  right  hand ;  for  his  godhead  cannot  be  exalted,  as  that  always  froi 
eternity  was  as  high  as  it  can  be.    The  man  Jesus  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  Go( 
where  no  angel  can  sit ;  hence  wherever  that  is,  there  must  also  be  this  ma 
"Where  is  God's  right  hand  ?    Answer:  "If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  a 
there  :  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold  thou  art  there :  if  I  take  the  wings  of  tl 
morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea,  even  there  shall  thy  ha 
lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me" — Psalm  139,  v.  8,  10.    This  sho 
that  the  right  hand  of  God  is  in  heaven,  in  hell,  at  the  uttermost  parts  of  t 
sea — in  short,  every  where  :  hence  Jesus  must  be  the  same.    The  Lord's  1 
manity,  as  well  as  his  divinity,  is  worshippped : — see  Phil.  ii.  5,  11 ;  Heb.  i. 
Rev.  v.  11, 14.    But  it  would  be  idolatry  to  worship  his  humanity,  if  it  did  r 
possess  all  divine  perfections. 

not  omnipresent,  but  imagine  God  to  be  where  the  man  Jesus  is  not,  eviden' 
separate  God  and  man,  which  is  the  same  as  denying  that  God  came  into  t 
ftesh.    Is  not  this  the  doctrine  of  Antichrist  ?  See  II.  John,  v.  7.    In  this  pi; 
I  must  also  answer  another  objection,  which  is  made  by  my  opponents  agai 
our  sacramental  doctrine.    They  say,  we  read,  John,  c,  6,  v.  63,  "It  is  the  sp 
that  quickeneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing :  the  words  which  I  speak  u: 
you,  they  are  spirit,  and  they,  are  life."    Hence,  if  the  flesh  profit  nothi 
why  then  should  any  one  insist  for  it  to  be  received  in  the  sacrament  ?  1 
the  context  shows  the  imbecility  of  the  objection,  verse  52,  "The  Jews,  the 
fore,  strove  among  themselves,  saying,  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh 
cat  ?"    Christ  answered  their  question  by  the  following  verses  :  That  tl 
must  not  only  eat  his  flesh,  but  also  drink  his  blood,  in  order  to  have  eter 
life.    The  Jews  did  not  only  doubt  this,  but  even  his  disciples;  therefore 
explains  himself  further :  "  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  What  and  if  ye  shall 
the  son  of  man  ascend  up  where  he  was  before  ?" — v.  61,  62.    By  this 
proves  that  he  possesses  a  divine  dignity  and  power;  so  that  it  is  not  impo 
ble  for  him  to  do  what  he  said  in  the  preceding  verses.    When  he  saith,  " 
flesh  profiteth  nothing,"  he  speaks  like  infinite  wisdom  itself.    His  flesh  co 
not  profit  any  thing,  if  that  was  all.    If  Christ  had  flesh,  and  no  blood,  it  wo 
prove  that  he  was  dead.    There  is  no  living  man,  unless  he  has  blood  as  v 
as  flesh  :  but  when  he  has  no  more  blood,  then  he  is  dead.    No  Lutheran  p 
tends  to  argue  that  the  dead  flesh  of  our  Lord,  without  his  blood,  profit 
any  thing.    Christ   does  not  say,  "  My  flesh  and  my  blood  profit  nc 
ing hence  the  objection  is  groundless.    Christ  joins  his  blood  with 
body,  to  denote  that  he  is  to  be  received  as  a  living  Christ,  and  not  like  a  d< 
sacrifice,  whose  blood  is  all  spirit.    If  any  one  would  say  that  the  blood 
Christ  did  not  profit  any  thing,  he  would  blaspheme,  and  flatly  contradict 
John,  when  he  saith,  "the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  Son,  cleanseth  us  from 
sin."    I.  Epistle,  c.  1,  v.  7,  "It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth."    We  may  it 
explain  these  words  as  we  please — either  that  Christ's  human  soul  quicken 
Lis  body,  or  his  godhead  quickens  his  whole  human  nature,  it  will  amount 
the  same  thing,  that  he  is  to  be  received  not  as  a  dead  but  as  a  living  Savioi 
Many  move  ideas  might  be  collected  from  this  chapter,  to  justify  this  explar 
fion  ;  but  I  rannot       more  upon  it  in  ♦hi'?  pbee. 


'I  am  Sony  that  I  am  obliged  to  dismiss  this  subject  unfinished;  nut  &r 
Emits  of  this  little  work  "are  already  exceeded.    A  full  discussion  on  the  grand 
personage  of  Christ  will  require  50  or  60  pages ;  which,  at  my  leisure,  I  .  ' 
to  write  and  publish,' if  my  friends  will  patronize  it  with  the  same  liberality 
they  have  defrayed  the  most  of  the  expenses  of  the  publication  of  this  wort. 


It 


CONCLUSION. 

Brothers  and  Sisters,  &c. 

fin  a  very  critical  time — portentous  of  great  events,  almosJ;  within 
ken.  The  prophecies  are  fulfilling.  The  great  falling  away  from  christian^  y 
has  rapidly  increased  in  Europe,  and  progressing  in  America ;  it  therefore  can- 
not be  long  before  the  man  of  sin  (antichrist)  will  set  himself  into  the  temple 
of  God — see  II.  Thess.  c.  2 — and  extend  his  bloody  reign  over  the  world,  and 
persecute  the  christians :  see  Rev.  c,  13.  No  wonder,  then,  when  there  are 
many  strange  revolutions  in  the  church  already,  to  try  the  faithful.  In  all 
probability  many  more,  ere  long,  will  take  place,  as  it  is  the  opinion  of  many 
able  divines,  (not  only  of  them,  as  that  would  not  make  it  so,  but  the  scrip- 
tures foretel  it,)  that  popery  once  more  shall  be  revived,  with  all  its  persecuting* 
horrors,  against  genuine  protestants,  for  a  little  season.  General  synods,  clan- 
destine societies  under  a  good  garb,  and  the  worshippers  of  monarchy  and 
political  religion,  are  so  many  instruments  by  which  the  Dragon  may  rear  his 
throne  of  despotism,  and  once  more  deluge  the  world  with  blood.  His  prin- 
cipal aim  is  to  destroy  the  doctrine  that  God  came  into  the  flesh,  and  lesseft 
the  value  of  the  holy  sacraments*  and  enthrone  human.reason  as  a  God,  and  to 
render  every  servant  of  Christ  infamous  by  persecution.  Prepare  to  meet 
these  scenes,  and  think  not  to  fly  from  the  cross,  which  is  the  christian's  glory. 
"Where  Christ  dwells  in  the  heart  of  a  believer,  there  must  be  a  Judas  to  be- 
tray him,  a  proud  Herod  to  despise,  a  Caiphas  to  condemn,  and  a  double-heart- 
ed Pilate  to  crucify  him.  But  he  will  not  remain  dead,  he  will  rise  and  be  glo- 
rified. Let  me  remind  you  of  your  solemn  vows,  which  ye  made  when  ye  were 
confirmed  by  the  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer :  ye  then  solemnly  promised 
(or  rather  swore)  that  ye  would  ever  adhere  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran 
church,  and  obey  her  discipline.  Then,  I  beseech  you,  continue  faithful.  How 
shocking  must  it  be  to  deny  the  doctrine  ye  were  pledged  to  maintain.  How 
dreadful  to  neglect  the  communion  of  the  regular  church  !  Is  it  not  similar, 
in  its  nature,  to  perjury !  I  What  a  crime  perjury  is  !  Is  the  breaking  of  a 
solemn  vow  less  ?  To  be  guilty  of  a  schism  is  a  great  crime,  and  is  an  imitation 
of  the  gainsaying  of  Korali,  Dathan,and  Abiram.  .  Such  as  wilfully  transgress 
the  rules  of  a  regular  church,  and  deny  the  very  doctrine  they  were  sworn  to 
maintain,  are  guilty  of  a  schism.,  heresy,  and  the  breaking  of  a  truce  ;  and  they 
shall  not  escape  punishment,  as  little  as  Koran,  Dathan,  and  Abiram.  Wo  be  to 
such  as  are  found  in  the  gainsaying  of  Korah.  Their  numbers  and  wealth,  in 
which  they  trust,  shall  not  deliver  them  from  the  vengeance  of  God. 

.  I  am  constrained  to  acknowledge  myself  much  obliged  to  my  brethren,  who 
havc-participated  in  many  of  my  distresses,  and  afforded  me  much  assistance , 
to  maintain  my  reputation,  as  well  as  family.  I  hope  those  who  have  absented 
themselves  from  our  churches  and  communion,  in  consequence  of  this  revolu- 
tion in  the  Synod,  will,  upon  perusing  this  little  work,  be  better  convinced,  and 
return  again  to  their  former  pastures,  and  refresh  the  hearts  of  their  brethren. 
I  remain  your  humble  brother,  DAVID  HENKEL. 


ERRATA. — Page  1,  line  26,  instead  of  have  traversed,  read  has  traversed. 
Page  11,  line  26,  instead  of  plan-posals,  read  plan-proposals.  Page  14,  line  34-, 
instead  of  seven  horns,  read  seven  heads,  Page  22,  where  it  says  Philip  Henk^I 
baptised  191  adults,  read  9,  rV  * 


pu 


c  - 


